Democrats & Liberals Archives

Patriots' Day explosions

Multiple explosions have been reported in the City of Boston today. At least two explosions occurred at Copley Square near the finish line for the Boston Marathon, which also occurred today. Another explosion has been reported at the JFK Library. At this point, it is far too early to do anything, but make wild speculations, but we certainly will learn more as this plays out. Below the fold, I have included links to local media where one can find updates:

The Boston Globe
Public Radio 1
Public Radio 2
Local TV:
ABC
NBC
CBS

Posted by Warren Porter at April 15, 2013 6:14 PM
Comments
Comment #364171

Now here is my speculation:

April 15 is a symbolic date. This year, it is the day we celebrate the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington & Concord. It is also the deadline for taxes owed for 2012. Lastly, it is also the birthday of Kim il-Sung, the late founder of North Korea.

Although this has not been officially confirmed, in all likelihood, this is a premeditated attack intended to terrorize Bostonians. Three possible perpetrators come to my mind, but I could still be wrong:

1: North Korea:
Kim Jong-un has been sabre rattling for a few weeks. Most people thought it was just the prelude to a missile test to celebrate his grandfather’s birthday. As of right now, no such missile test has occurred, so perhaps this attack is their doing.

2: Al Qaeda or some other Islamist group: The Copley Square explosion occurred in a prime place for viewing by the media assigned to cover the finish line. It is Al Qaeda’s style to target locations that are likely to be highly visible to the media. However, Al Qaeda is also a fan of simultaneous attacks and the JFK Library explosion occurred about an hour later.

3: The Tea Party: We’ve been victims of conservative terrorists before and tax day has been an annual favorite day for the Tea Party to organize their protests. However, I’m skeptical that they are behind this particular attack. It doesn’t make sense for them to target the JFK library.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 15, 2013 7:00 PM
Comment #364173

Warren, the JFK library was not a target of the attack in Boston, it was just a fire that occurred around the same time.

It is also ‘Patriot Day’ in Boston.

It is also the date of the Boston Marathon. It could just be that someone close to Boston knew a lot of people were going to be in a small area where a bomb could do the most damage. I’m suspicious that it had anything to do with the actual date.

There was an official of Boston that mentioned on twitter that the location of the bomb was about the same place that the Newton survivors were located, the race was being held in their honor.

I’m not sure of any active violent groups domestically, this could be a new one. The left and right radical groups have been mostly peaceful for a while, but there is no reason to make any assumptions that a fringe member of one of those groups couldn’t have done this either.

There are reports of a 20 year old Saudi National being held in questioning. Again, far too soon to know for sure what to make of it yet.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 15, 2013 7:28 PM
Comment #364174
We’ve been victims of conservative terrorists before

And progressive, domestic terrorists are not all ‘right wing’ or ‘conservative’. Let’s try to keep the partisanism out of this until we know something, ok?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 15, 2013 7:30 PM
Comment #364175

BTW, as much as we want to talk about the tragedy of this situation, and who was behind it, let’s not forget to put some focus on some of the human response to the situation, including marathon runners stopping their run to go into hospitals to give blood, people opening their doors to take in people in the area while it was chaotic, etc.

People are mostly good decent people, I want to keep us remembering that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 15, 2013 7:33 PM
Comment #364179

Shame on anyone who criticized Israel for not caving to Muslim extremists’ demands. The VAST majority of conflicts around the world (estimates from multiple sources are over 90%) involve these assholes. I’m betting cash that this is exactly who’s responsible for this. They only understand one thing and that’s death and there are many in our armed forces that will be more than happy to bring it to them.

Posted by: BZA at April 15, 2013 8:18 PM
Comment #364180

BTW, as bad as this event is, it could have been worse. It is reported that a person driving a rental box truck was turned away from entering close to the marathon route. This may be innocuous, but was there a bigger plan in place?

The authorities have a couple of undetonated devices in custody now, I’m sure we will know much more by tomorrow concerning the nature of this attack.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 15, 2013 8:26 PM
Comment #364182

Rhinehold-
I’m waiting on evidence. Folks bet that Muslim terrorists were responsible for Oklahoma City, but they weren’t. Folks bet that the guy who shot Gabby Gifford, Jared Loughner was a Tea Partier, but he wasn’t particularly partisan.

I would warn people against conspiracy theories. Rumors have a way of crawling up from the slime like ghouls from the grave.

As for the Right Wing? Oklahoma City, Waco, and years worth of literature and belligerent behavior are what get people thinking of them first.

Of course, al-Qaeda’s attacks, and the attacks of Palestinian groups before them are part of what get billions of innocent Muslims the dirty looks.

If the left doesn’t get much of a look in this case, it’s because the left-wing groups these days don’t have the same level of belligerence or militancy. If it is a left-wing group, that would be shocking.

But it won’t be what anybody believes that matters in this case. It’s where the hard facts lead.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 15, 2013 9:05 PM
Comment #364185

The worst part about the recent news conference I saw was the first question from a ‘reporter’ was ‘Is this a black flag operation put into play in order to further take away our civil liberties?’

The answer the official gave was ‘No’.

So… did the guy think he was going to say ‘Ok you got us…’?

Then, at the end of the news conference, he starts shouting about black flag operations again…

*sigh*

Alex Jones is already in full force on this, btw. I’m sure No Agenda will be all over it too.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 15, 2013 10:14 PM
Comment #364186

First of all, it is impossible for it to be the work of Al-Qaeda; since we know that Obama has wiped out Al-Qaeda.

Secondly, “Jared Loughner was a Tea Partier”:

“Who went to a high school with curriculum crafted by Bill Ayers,

- Whose favorite tomes include The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf,

- Whose classmates describe him as a left-wing, weed-wafting, atheistic Beavis,

- Who had a human skull altar erected in his backyard,

- Whose hero list (according to Facebook) includes Barack Obama,

… and somehow, they magically wiggle their nose, tug their ear, and stomp their feet and poof, abracadabra, this punk instantly morphs into Newt Gingrich?”

http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2011/01/15/jared_loughner_was_a_tea_partier_and_i%e2%80%99m_an_atheist_river_dancer_who_hates_hunting

But Mr. Porter did forget another group that could have done the terrorist act…perhaps it was Catholics or right wing evangelical Christian groups:

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/u-s-army-equates-catholicism-and-evangelical-christianity-with-al-qaeda-and-hamas/

But most probably BZA is right.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 15, 2013 10:20 PM
Comment #364188

DSP2195, Stephen was pointing out that initially some folks (most people on Daily KOS where we are supposed to get all things progressive it seems) thought Loughner was a member of the Tea Party and they were wrong about that. In other words, agreeing that he wasn’t.

So, I’m not sure who your comment is for…?

Personally, I don’t have any idea yet, there are some conflicting information. I am betting either a guy who has sympathies to the children we are killing with drones, acting alone and getting all of his info on how to make a bomb on the internet OR a small group of people who wanted to scare some people for some reason. If it were al Qaeda, they would have already claimed responsibility I think.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 15, 2013 10:33 PM
Comment #364223

Rhinehold-
I’m not sure al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, per se. I noticed that black flag question, and loved that the guy was shot down with a simple no.

DSP2195-
The guy was part of an obscure movement that believed that screwing around with punctuation and grammar could give you power against the federal government, and put periods and other weird junk in their names. Did he have some left-wing links in his past? Evidently so. But by the time the guy murdered several people and tried to assassinate a member of Congress, though, he was just plain out of his mind. Politics means nothing to somebody who posts something like this.

And how about that Lanza guy? A conservative with libertarian ideology, according to those who knew him.

I’d hardly claim that those on the left are immune to being violent, or anything like that. But Republicans have lionized gun rights as a way to stand up to perceived tyranny, and then come around and painted such an alarming picture of the left, that folks can’t help but wonder when the idiots going to come around who will try and take things that next step forward.

As for al-Qaeda, don’t lie about what Obama’s said about al-Qaeda. Nobody’s said they’re completely destroyed. Are there just not enough decent facts to support your opinion, that you feel it necessary to invent new ones?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2013 12:15 AM
Comment #364225

Never let a good tragedy go to waste, huh Stephen? Wave that bloody shirt and stand on those graves. The means justify the ends in the Obama era.

Posted by: Joseph at April 16, 2013 12:58 AM
Comment #364226

Here’s another partisan theory to level out the liberals’ premature attack on the TEA Party:

It was an Obama supporter/Democrat upset that Obama’s statist legislative proposals couldn’t pass Congress after Sandy Hook, so by killing more innocent people, he would make it easier for the statists in Congress to take away more of our rights in the name of “safety.”

Posted by: Joseph at April 16, 2013 1:05 AM
Comment #364227

Joseph-
I’m explicitly withholding judgment. The same cannot be said for you. There are factors, like Patriots Day and the fact that it’s Tax day, for it to be a Right Wing attack. But it could also be some al-Qaeda thing, given their love of coordinated, mass casualty attacks.

I provided counterexamples to DSP’s claim. My own comments, which explicitly say that the evidence, even if it leads to a leftist person or group, should be the guide, stands as counterexample to what you’re saying.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2013 1:23 AM
Comment #364229

First Major “Tea Party Patriot” Tax Day Protests: April 15th 2009
Link that focuses specifically on Tea Party Extremism:

http://justanothercoverup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/TeaPartyNationalism.pdf

Do a search for April 15th in that document - unfortunately the date will pop up a lot.

And here’s Wikipedia talking about the Tea Party and the significance of April 15th:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#April_15.2C_2009_tax_day_events

Just because it will make many uncomfortable it should not be ruled out that some wacko might have decided to become the next Timothy McVeigh - a monster who was also willing to kill a lot of innocent people, including many children.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 3:16 AM
Comment #364240

To ALL on watchblog, Let’s wait and see who is responsible for this act of terror. I will NOT comment on this until the facts are in and then I will expect swift and harsh punishment, no matter who is responsible.

Posted by: tdobson at April 16, 2013 5:29 AM
Comment #364242

Stephen said:

“Rhinehold-
I’m waiting on evidence.”

“Joseph-
I’m explicitly withholding judgment.”

Oh, I’m sorry Stephen, but did you feel the same sense of justice when Travon Martin was killed; or did you have Zimmerman convicted and executed before he was ever arrested? Stephen, you are full of so much BS.

Posted by: George at April 16, 2013 6:52 AM
Comment #364243

Unlike Stephen Daugherty’s innuendoes; Adrienne has the courage and is willing to show the true beliefs and mentality of the left. Way to go Adrienne! Just flat out blame the Tea Party.

Posted by: George at April 16, 2013 7:02 AM
Comment #364244

George-
First and foremost, am I accusing Zimmerman of having killed Trayvon Martin with any doubt concerning the fact that he did it? No. Everybody stipulates that fact. The question is, does his defense hold up? I don’t believe so. I believe he did too much to get himself into that mess, too much to alarm and put Trayvon Martin in fear of his own life to say the killing was justified, not to mention the fact that Martin was only armed with a bag of skittles and a can of ice tea. When you pull a gun in a fist fight, the typical stance of the law is that you’ve escalated the incident.

Coming back to this incident, we got barely any information. We don’t have the fact anywhere near as filled in.

Yes, I think right wing terrorists are a possibility here. I also think an al Qaeda cell, or some lone nut sympathetic to either side might be responsible. Or, it could be somebody entirely different.

Hell, I’ll even entertain the possibility that it was somebody trying to murder somebody else for non-terrorist reasons, or wanted to charge in as a hero after the fact.

The facts are so vague at this point, I could easily fall flat on my face if I jumped to a conclusion. That’s what folks should keep in mind at this early stage.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2013 7:59 AM
Comment #364246

“3: The Tea Party: We’ve been victims of conservative terrorists before… “

So the Tea Party is now a terrorist organization? Does that mean all who believe in low taxes and limited government are now to be designated as terrorists?
Hmmmm? You know, after the government reports, the SPLC propaganda and listening to the media, I can see why you are promoting such BS rhetoric Warren.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2013 9:19 AM
Comment #364248

The Feds raided an apartment and are looking for a rental van. It seems like they’re closing in on someone or several someones. Too early to speculate about who or why. Jumping to conclusions are usually the wrong ones. Remember Richard Jewell and the Olympic Park bombings? Today is the anniversary of the tragic shootings on my college campus where police assumed the first two victims were killed by the girl’s boyfriend and spent the next hours looking for him and not locking down the campus and 30 more people were murdered. We will know what’s going on soon enough. It may be Islamists, it may be North Koreans, it may be right or left wing extremists, it may be a mentally disturbed individual. It may be someone whose reasons we have not anticipated.

Posted by: tcsned at April 16, 2013 10:09 AM
Comment #364249

http://www.businessinsider.com/inspiring-images-from-boston-2013-4

This is a sampling of just 13 images of people being awesome after yesterday’s bombings.

One of them was a facebook post by Patton Oswald that I want to share:

Boston. Fucking horrible.

I remember, when 9/11 went down, my reaction was, “Well, I’ve had it with humanity.”

But I was wrong. I don’t know what’s going to be revealed to be behind all of this mayhem. One human insect or a poisonous mass of broken sociopaths.

But here’s what I DO know. If it’s one person or a HUNDRED people, that number is not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population on this planet. You watch the videos of the carnage and there are people running TOWARDS the destruction to help out. (Thanks FAKE Gallery founder and owner Paul Kozlowski for pointing this out to me). This is a giant planet and we’re lucky to live on it but there are prices and penalties incurred for the daily miracle of existence. One of them is, every once in awhile, the wiring of a tiny sliver of the species gets snarled and they’re pointed towards darkness.

But the vast majority stands against that darkness and, like white blood cells attacking a virus, they dilute and weaken and eventually wash away the evil doers and, more importantly, the damage they wreak. This is beyond religion or creed or nation. We would not be here if humanity were inherently evil. We’d have eaten ourselves alive long ago.

So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, “The good outnumber you, and we always will.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2013 10:24 AM
Comment #364251
Way to go Adrienne! Just flat out blame the Tea Party.

I’ll repeat:
Just because it will make many uncomfortable it should not be ruled out that some wacko might have decided to become the next Timothy McVeigh - a monster who was also willing to kill a lot of innocent people, including many children.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 12:51 PM
Comment #364253

Pressure cooker remnants were found in the initial investigation of the type of bomb used. The type used in Afganistan, Pakistan border. In a news report just reciently. We had a guy try this at Fort Hood who wanted to kill soliders, who was of Arab decent. This could be a copy cat terror attack by Muslim haters or anyone else who is a wack job who just wants to kill people. This also goes to show all those gun haters, you don’t need a gun to kill or maim, just a will to hurt as many as possible by any means.

Posted by: KAP at April 16, 2013 1:18 PM
Comment #364254

More left wing dribble Adrienne, people like you are what gives liberals a bad name.

Posted by: KAP at April 16, 2013 1:22 PM
Comment #364255

kctim-
A number of right wing groups associated with the Tea Party are also associated with militias, white supremacist groups, and other such alarming and extreme organizations.

Additionally, Oklahoma City remains a touchstone for a hidden, underlying fear of many Center to left folks. In seeing the ramping up of right wing anger and separatist sentiments, this pull away from the mainstream, from basic empathy with the left as human beings, people like me see a potential for a repeat of the militia violence that marred matters in the 90’s.

You can’t go on and on about how the left is treatening the survival of the country, about how Obama is some marxist muslim plant, trying to bring our country to ruin, and then expect that somebody out there won’t take that rhetoric at face value and take, what in that context, would be a rational next step: removing, fighting those threats.

Sure, it motivates many people to the polls, sends others to the gun shops to buy up rifles like they’ll be gone tomorrow, ammunition like the apocalypses is about to occur. But realistically, it also convinces some that, in the tradition of watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.

And with Democrats unconvinced of this supposed villainy, what do you think their reaction will be?

Having not stewed in this bath of corrosive propaganda, they will think those people have gone nuts. And then what? Rationalization, or rejection?

Right Wing politicians are playing with fire, trying to hold on to power.

They should realize that if they want a reputation as nice, calm, rational folks, they can’t continue to spin conspiracy theories and demonize the left with such venom. They can’t continue to express their political will primarily by denying the ability of others to express theirs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2013 1:22 PM
Comment #364256

Well, so much for that.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2013 2:18 PM
Comment #364257

KAP, you’re just really petrified that it might be rightwing terrorism, aren’t you?

You should be. The conclusions of the DHS report on terrorism (that the right freaked out about and demanded be suppressed) showed that 56% percent of domestic terrorist attacks and plots in the U.S. since 1995 were perpetrated by right-wing extremists — compared to 30 percent by ecoterrorists or their organizations, and 12 percent by Islamic extremists.

As for the bombs: isn’t the calling card of jihad-type terrorism is suicide bombing? And often with massive explosives to do the most damage possible? It’s now being reported that these were small homemade bombs that contained black powder or gunpowder as the explosive and ball bearings as shrapnel. That sounds a lot more to me like a coward who wanted to see firsthand the results of what he did to all those innocent people…

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 2:36 PM
Comment #364258
the JFK library was not a target of the attack in Boston, it was just a fire that occurred around the same time.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my original entry accordingly.
It is also ‘Patriot Day’ in Boston.
You are wrong.

At this point, I have nothing more to say other to thank God that my friends and relatives are all safe. My cousin’s fiance was running in the marathon and had made it to the 25th mile when the explosion occurred; I guess he is fortunate that he didn’t run faster. At the same time, my younger brother was on his way from his Boston University dorm to watch our cousin’s fiance. Both of them are extremely lucky not to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. I also am very glad that Bostonians are the toughest people America has to offer, that city is resilient and will march forward instead of caving into fear and innuendo. I also appreciate reading stories of marathon runners who ran beyond Copley Square to area hospitals to donate blood for the injured victims.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 16, 2013 2:48 PM
Comment #364259

Where did that come from Adrienne, more left wing dribble. No I’m not affraid that any right wing or left wing Idiot did this. I’m more affraid of people like you jumping to conclusions and putting the blame where it should NOT be. As I said Adrienne people like you give liberals and progressives a bad name. By the way, if it was a right wing idiot who did this I hope they fry his/her dumb ass.

Posted by: KAP at April 16, 2013 2:50 PM
Comment #364260

Perhaps Stephen can justify the 506 murders committed by left wing democrats in Chicago in 2012. Most of the murders were committed by blacks and Hispanics against blacks and Hispanics and we all know blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly vote democrat. Therefore the murders were committed by left wing groups. Of course this takes place in every major democrat run city in the country.

Stephen, if you hate guns and the right to own them so much, why don’t you just move to Canada? So in your warped mind, you consider 2nd amendment rights as the reason for violence….and yet it is the anti-gun democrat run cities where most of the hate crime murders take place.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 16, 2013 2:51 PM
Comment #364261

Rhinehold-
I’m not saying it’s they who are responsible. My fear though, is that if Democrats, Liberals, government workers, are continually portrayed as being threats to people’s lives, freedom, etc., that we will see another attack like Oklahoma city.

Additionally, it’s long been my sentiment that if Republicans and conservatives do not want to be seen as scary and violent, they might do themselves a favor, and start to approach their radical fringe as the Left does its own.

We police our own because we’re all too aware that even if we ignore them and pretend like they’re just on their own, that we’ll get associated with what they say and do.

Ultimately, it’s good to have a sense of shame. While some may be able to put your party in a difficult spot on its account, the consequences of not nipping some of the morons in the bud may put the party in even a worse spot.

We will see who did this. That’s an open question until the evidence comes in, and I’m happy to wait so I don’t get my hand in the mousetrap of a premature accusation.

But I do think the Right needs to calm things down, because too much anger, fear, and hatred in one place will lead to somebody lashing out against those being demonized.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2013 3:02 PM
Comment #364262
That sounds a lot more to me like a coward who wanted to see firsthand the results of what he did to all those innocent people…

Which sounds much more like Lone Wolf Terrorism, not right or left wing terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_terrorism

Were it some group making a political point, we would have heard someone claiming responsibility for it. It would also have been more coordinated with other attacks, better funded, etc.

Your suggestion that it was ‘right wing terrorism’ at this point with no information towards that suggestion is just wishful thinking for the advancement of your partisan ideas, which is disgusting, to say the least. Not that I don’t expect it, especially from the likes of Maddow or you.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2013 3:07 PM
Comment #364263

Stephen
You sound like you get all your rhetoric from MSNBC and the SPLC and believe it to be fact. You should not do that as it makes you terribly misinformed and looking silly.
Look, your people have been constantly trying to silence the Tea Party by labeling them terrorists since they first formed, and, to be quit honest, it is absolutely sickening that you would do that to your fellow citizens just because they dare not agree with you.

Of course “people like you” see a potential for militia violence because “people like you” are constantly poking them with a stick. You dictate and control how everybody lives and then you have the nerve to complain people don’t treat you right? Blah.

“Sure, it motivates many people to the polls,”

Just as the lefts tired lies of racism, war on women and pushing granny over the cliff, does.

“sends others to the gun shops to buy up rifles like they’ll be gone tomorrow, “ammunition like the apocalypses is about to occur.”“

If the anti rights people get their way, many rifles will be gone, just as they are in NY. Expanded mags will be gone. And ammunition will limited, rationed and subject to what basically constitutes as a registry.
Yeah, how dares those “nuts” talk about 2nd Amendment rights being infringed upon.

“But realistically, it also convinces some that, in the tradition of watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.”

It also convinces some to join groups like the weather underground, eco-terrorists and animal nut jobs.

“Right Wing politicians are playing with fire, trying to hold on to power.”

As are your people and politicians, Stephen. Your entire platform is based on demonizing everybody on the right. People are racist for not voting for Obama. People are terrorists for wanting limited government and lower taxes. People are unstable GUN NUTS for supporting the 2nd Amendment.

Talk about denying others the ability to express their own beliefs. Your people are legislating and demonizing peoples beliefs away.

When Nadal committed his terrorist act, your people talked about not jumping to conclusions about muslims, but now we have crap liberal TV and writers spouting propaganda about how it “could be” the work of right-wingers.

Face it, your people want this to be the act of a right-wing “extremist” to give you some political points.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2013 3:23 PM
Comment #364264

Warren,
Glad your family escaped unscathed. Must be a strange and scary atmosphere at the moment — but I know you’ll come through, and I agree that folks in Boston are tough, resilient people. Some of the best friends I’ve ever had the pleasure and privilege to know are from that area.

KAP
Go ahead and heap on all the insults you want — I’m used to that here, and I don’t really care. I’m not jumping to any conclusions. But I am trying to understand what the facts are as information comes in. It could very well turn out to be foreign terrorism. Although no foreign terrorist organization has taken credit for the bombing as of this writing. But it could also be domestic terrorism. And unfortunately some symbolism for rightwing terrorism exists, whether folks on the right like it or not.
This was Patriot’s day on the four year anniversary of the first major Tea Party Protest. It was Tax day. The Newton families were there in attendance and the last mile of the race had been dedicated to the victims of Sandy Hook. In Boston — the home of the original Boston Tea Party. Often thought of by people on the right as the east coast capital of liberalism — and often referred to by them as “Taxachusetts.”

You may not wish to think about it, but no one should blame anyone for entertaining thoughts that this could very well have been a rightwing attack.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 3:26 PM
Comment #364265
My fear though, is that if Democrats, Liberals, government workers, are continually portrayed as being threats to people’s lives, freedom, etc., that we will see another attack like Oklahoma city.

Oklahoma City was not right wing terrorism fueled by pointing out loss of freedoms and threats by the government, it was fueled by the government KILLING PEOPLE, ie Ruby Ridge and Waco. McVeigh was upset about those specific incidents, he wasn’t pushed into action because of political discourse, nor was he a member of any group.

McVeigh and his three co-conspirators were Lone Wolf terrorists, the political atmosphere at the time had zero to do with their actions. McVeigh visited the Waco compound during the standoff, he wasn’t being frothed up by anyone but himself.

Perhaps you are too young to remember what actually happened during those few years, but very few people on the right were shedding tears about Waco and almost no one knew about Ruby Ridge, or seemed to care. The fact that the government has still not come forward and taken responsibility probably doesn’t sit well with some people who saw them as acts of a government aggression against its own citizens.

If anything, they were anarchists more than right-wing, which would put them in the left-wing terrorist group. Right-wing terrorism is about nationalism, left-wing is more about ideology and anarchism.

“Left-wing terrorism has its roots in 19th and early 20th century anarchist terrorism and became pronounced during the Cold War period”

I know you are too young to remember the late 60s and early 70s when the left wing terrorist groups were terrorizing the country, but I do and I would never suggest that political discourse should be ‘held back’ because of a few malfunctioning individuals who might take those to heart, whether on the right or the left. Those people would find something to be upset enough about to kill others. It wasn’t the Democrat’s fault, or the fault of the protestors or anyone else speaking out about what was going on who was to blame, it was THOSE INDIVIDUALS who chose to harm others, for whatever reason, who are at fault.

Just as I wouldn’t blame whole groups of people for the actions of those who acted on 9/11, I wouldn’t blame any group for the actions of the mentally disturbed fringe who gravitate towards their message. It is folly and does nothing more but to fan the flames of partisan hatred further.

If you really want to ease political tensions, stop assuming the other side wants to kill innocent people.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2013 3:29 PM
Comment #364266

Some sage words:

The two most infamous terrorist attacks on American soil are the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 and the 9/11 assaults of 2001. And so, naturally, people have rushed to assume that we were dealing with either the second coming of Timothy McVeigh or the second coming of Osama bin Laden. If they have a worldview where right-wing extremists are especially frightening, they might point out portentously that the explosions occurred on Tax Day and Patriots’ Day; if they have a worldview centered around the fear of Islam, they find reasons to assume that Muslims must be responsible. Observers with more outré outlooks reached for more unusual narratives, as when Alex Jones, the Illuminati-sniffing talk show host, tweeted that the atrocity “stinks” of a false flag attack. (Evidently they have a special smell.) Jones came in for a lot of mockery, as well he should. But none of these people knew what they were talking about.

As I write, no one has claimed responsibility for the blasts. The police, meanwhile, are keeping their suspicions close to the vest. This could turn out to be a right-wing or Islamist attack, but it could easily turn out to be something completely different. A movement doesn’t need to be big or famous to commit murder. It doesn’t even need to have a membership larger than a single disgruntled asshole. The history of domestic terrorism is filled with figures like George Metesky, the generator wiper who was injured in a boiler explosion and denied workman’s compensation, and who then spent 16 years planting bombs around New York to get his revenge. For now I have no idea who committed this crime and, more to the point, neither do any of the alleged experts speculating on television.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2013 3:39 PM
Comment #364267

Adrienne, what sickens me more than what happened in Boston is left wing extremeist like you who blame everyone else for what is wrong with this country. You can call Islamist right wing for their religious jihad terror attacks. I also am watching news reports about this. I haven’t blamed anyone YET, nor will I say anything about right wing or left wing extremist as you have about rightwingers.

Posted by: KAP at April 16, 2013 3:44 PM
Comment #364268
but no one should blame anyone for entertaining thoughts that this could very well have been a rightwing attack.

I do, just as I do for anyone thinking it was a ‘false flag’, muslim terrorist, eco-terrorist, communist, Egyptian Mummy, act of god or UFO plot.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2013 3:45 PM
Comment #364269
Which sounds much more like Lone Wolf Terrorism, not right or left wing terrorism.

I’m not in any way, shape, or form speculating that Tea Party organizations would have ever planned such a terrorist attack. If this turns out to be domestic terrorism, it will likely be a lone wolf (or a few wolves) type of attack.

I also strongly doubt this will be left wing terrorism. Historically speaking, Left Anarchist terror attacks have never gone after innocent random people, they have focused on figures with state or monetary power. Such as the anarchist who shot and killed President McKinley. Or the various anarchist attempts to bomb (without success) extremely wealthy capitalists during the Gilded Age.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 3:45 PM
Comment #364270

Sorry, but McVeigh was a lone wolf terrorist whose ideologies grew out of extremist thinking from the political right.
And the same was true of Anders Brevik.

Crazy, yes. From the right, also yes.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 3:54 PM
Comment #364271

*sigh* Just another example of how terrorism works… Not sure if we are ever going to ‘get it’.

A United Airlines flight that was about to take off for Chicago was brought back to the gate after passengers expressed concern over two people speaking a foreign language, according to aviation authorities. Passengers and bags were taken off the plane and rescreened, and two people were rebooked on a later flight. The aircraft was then “swept and cleared for takeoff,” according to United Airlines spokeswoman Christen David.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2013 4:02 PM
Comment #364272

I love the way the liberals on WB talk in their most pseudo-intellect manner about reserving judgment until the facts come out; and at the same time try to blame the incident on every conservative who has ever lived. I would love to know at what point in history any liberal has ever “policed” the ultra far left. Obama has rubbed elbows with these far ultra lefts, agreed with them, and yet acts like he does not know them. Rhinehold is correct, when Stephen and others were not yet in diapers, terrorists like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and many others. These people were the heros of Obama.

“The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American radical left organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman first organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[2] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the US government.[3]

With revolutionary positions characterized by Black liberation rhetoric,[2] the group conducted a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s, including aiding the jailbreak and escape of Timothy Leary. The “Days of Rage”, their first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven. In 1970 the group issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States government, under the name “Weather Underground Organization” (WUO).[4]

The bombing attacks mostly targeted government buildings, along with several banks. Most were preceded by evacuation warnings, along with communiqués identifying the particular matter that the attack was intended to protest. No persons were killed in any of their acts of property destruction, although three members of the group were killed in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. For the bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971, they issued a communiqué saying it was “in protest of the U.S. invasion of Laos”. For the bombing of the Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated it was “in retaliation for the U.S. bombing raid in Hanoi”. For the January 29, 1975 bombing of the United States Department of State building, they stated it was “in response to escalation in Vietnam”.[4]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

Read the whole article if you want to see how the left really operates. The names change, but the message of the left is still the same. Stephen wants to act as if the left is a bunch of lovey-dovey, peace loving adherents to equality. But history teaches us different. These people were the most vile, dangerous people in America and for all the talk about the Tea Party, we know the OWS protestors followed in the footsteps of these socialist pigs.

Yes Stephen, you would love nothing better than to disarm the American people. Then you would be able to move your terrorists attacks from the cities to the flyover Midwest. As it stands right now, the WUO would get their asses shot off if they tried that stuff around a “well armed militia”.

Go peddle your Bullshit somewhere else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 16, 2013 4:10 PM
Comment #364273

Whenever someone (alone or in a group) commits a terrorist act it is always centered on hate and/or revenge. To attempt to link such an outrageous act to Republicans, Democrats, moderates, liberals or conservatives in general is also based upon hatred. I know of no terrorist aim or goal by any of the above mentioned political groups.

Every single American who loves liberty and freedom must stand against any terrorist, anywhere, for any reason.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 16, 2013 4:12 PM
Comment #364274

DSP2195-
You stay classy.

If your experience with guns is that you hunt, socialize, target shoot, etc., then such weapons don’t have such a tragic association with you. Law-abiding citizen has a more meaningful ring.

If, however, your experience is the deaths of friends and family, and a general level of violence and crime, then of course, you won’t like guns so much.

I mean, you research this, you find that people have plenty of guns in these places. It isn’t as if they’re prancing around wide-eyed going, “I’m so lucky, tralala, I’m never going to need a gun.”

No, plenty of people already have guns! Your solution is already in motion!

It hasn’t worked. The experience is key to the story.

As I understand it, while some folks might, if prompted, talk politics, most of the violence in Chicago isn’t about left wing violence. They’re not fighting over interpretations of marx, or bombing banks, or doing similar acts of terrorism. No, it’s good old-fashioned street crime, gangs scuffling over turf, selling drugs, etc.

But please, continue with the forced comparisions. Because when we hear from Right Wing militias, the rhetoric that justifies their beligerent attitudes explicitly cites the invasiveness of government, the possibility of apocalyptic American collapse, the violation of the constitution, as they see it; this exaggerated sense of the power and radicalism of most Liberal and Democratic Party associated groups, taxes, and, of course, second amendment rights, taken to a considerable extreme.

In other words, the core of these movements is an intensified version of what many in the Tea Party say.

There’s a direct connection between the paranoia and antiauthoritarianism of the Right and what these groups are like.

You?

First, by your definition, we could assign the label of political terrorism to any mob boss, depending on how they voted, if they could vote in that state, given their records. Would they be a Right Wing Terrorist if they voted Republican, a Left-Wing terrorist, if they voted for Democrats? I think it would be news to the La Cosa Nostra, if they were to learn that they were of a kind with Che Guevara!

I don’t think that black and hispanic gang members would be less surprised to find out that their turf battles and drug violence constituted acts of political terrorism, particularly that it made them like Hugo Chavez, or something like that.

It’s street crime, not terrorism. Let’s not render meaningful terms a muddled mess by taking your argument at face value.

As for hating guns?

This habit of exaggerating crap is getting annoying. I’ve never said I hate them. As a suburb-dweller who’s never shot at somebody nor been shot at, I don’t have any special animus against them.

I just thing there are rational limits to what kind of weapons we make available to the general public. That’s all. You need me to be worse than that, because simply saying that people don’t want the most dangerous, most deadly guns making it easier to create mass casualty events won’t get people turned against folks like me. In fact, they might come to our side.

No, people like me have to be gun-grabbers!, because otherwise you are straining at the limits of how comfortable people are with certain weapons being in private hands.

You substitute a lot of yellow-journalism style rhetoric for an actual argument. I’d be ashamed to take that argument seriously.

Rhinehold-
I’m too young to have a personal memory of it, but I’m old enough to have read about the sixties and the violence then. You know what? I’m not disputing that! In fact, this son of a bitch, for all I know, could be a left-winger, a marxist who targeted the event because of a sponsor or something.

I’m just saying that nowadays, the radicalism is greater on the Right, probably for the same reason that it was greater on the left in the sixties and seventies: splinter groups who thought that the dominant groups compromised too much with the other side. As they see the power of the other side rise, and their own side falter, they become desperate and angry. Maybe in thirty years, it cycles back the other way. Political groups in the minority tend to want to keep their more embarrassing compatriots safely buried out back, so as not to endanger any political comeback.

As for Ruby Ridge, and other such things, actually, I do remember. I was in school when they occured, but I did hear about them. I also heard the rhetoric from the other side concerning those incidents, the paranoia, the talk of jack-booted thugs.

I remember what that led to. Republicans are sensitive about the topic, because that put a massive chill on that sort of rhetoric. It scared people away from the right.

They’ve gotten back to talking the way I remember, if not worse, again posing Democrats as existential enemies of this country, and pushing conspiracy theories that make it seem like Obama’s about the bust down the door.

That needs to stop. It’s bull, but more so, it’s bull that is convincing some people that they might need to go beyond voting and activism in their quest to defeat the other side’s political momentum.

I don’t want people to die because some leaders in Washington and in the State Capitals and local parties are too worried about scaring their way back into power to speak responsibly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2013 4:13 PM
Comment #364275
But our brains are fooling us. Even though this will be in the news for weeks, we should recognize this for what it is: a rare event. That’s the very definition of news: something that is unusual — in this case, something that almost never happens.

Remember after 9/11 when people predicted we’d see these sorts of attacks every few months? That never happened, and it wasn’t because the TSA confiscated knives and snow globes at airports. Give the FBI credit for rolling up terrorist networks and interdicting terrorist funding, but we also exaggerated the threat. We get our ideas about how easy it is to blow things up from television and the movies. It turns out that terrorism is much harder than most people think. It’s hard to find willing terrorists, it’s hard to put a plot together, it’s hard to get materials, and it’s hard to execute a workable plan. As a collective group, terrorists are dumb, and they make dumb mistakes; criminal masterminds are another myth from movies and comic books.

There are things we can do to make us safer, mostly around investigation, intelligence, and emergency response, but we will never be 100-percent safe from terrorism; we need to accept that.

How well this attack succeeds depends much less on what happened in Boston than by our reactions in the coming weeks and months. Terrorism isn’t primarily a crime against people or property. It’s a crime against our minds, using the deaths of innocents and destruction of property as accomplices. When we react from fear, when we change our laws and policies to make our country less open, the terrorists succeed, even if their attacks fail. But when we refuse to be terrorized, when we’re indomitable in the face of terror, the terrorists fail, even if their attacks succeed.

It’s a shame this isn’t the type of language we hear from politicians and ‘leaders’ and political commentators. Not just events like this but also school shootings and other highly publicized, but very rare, events. We play into the hands of the perpetrators when we use the event to close in, point fingers and attempt to place blame on anyone BUT the individuals responsible.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2013 4:34 PM
Comment #364276

DSP2195-
You seem to speak a lot for me. Never bothered to get my permission for that, did you?

The single worst terrorist attack in my memory, before 9/11, was Oklahoma City. A domestic attack, by domestic, Right-Wing Terrorists. Do I ever want to look at the collapsed husk of a building, either in Oklahoma City, or New York City, ever again?

Absolutely not. It doesn’t take that much intellectualism. You prance about claiming you know the magic secrets of terrorist evil. Is it really that complicated? Some people are so atrociously egotistical that they think they’re the hero in a story, and they think their cause is worth so much, that they’re willing to kill hundreds, if not thousands of people to make a bloody, literally bloody, statement.

I don’t need to divide my country up into acceptable targets or unacceptable. I don’t believe in one region being better than another. I think of my people as equals.

Quit kissing your own ass by trying to kick mine. I believe in this country, and in keeping it safe from all enemies. I’m just a hell of a lot more selective about who I call an enemy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2013 4:39 PM
Comment #364277

“As I understand it, while some folks might, if prompted, talk politics, most of the violence in Chicago isn’t about left wing violence. They’re not fighting over interpretations of marx, or bombing banks, or doing similar acts of terrorism. No, it’s good old-fashioned street crime, gangs scuffling over turf, selling drugs, etc.”

Nice try Stephen, but socialist radicals like the WUO had their roots in the Democrat run cities like Chicago. Quit trying to be a revisionist and take a look at the real terrorists in America. I might add, the black panther movement (you know, the group that threatens voters) was tied to the WUO.

“No, people like me have to be gun-grabbers!,”

Good question…do you support CT’s and NY’s latest gun laws? If you do, then the shoe fits. Do you support Feinstein’s goal to confiscate all guns? If you do, the shoe fits. Stephen, you try your best to act like an intellectual, who only wants to negotiate. But your not. Your radical views are a threat to our republic. I’m glad you only represent a small group in America, but the problem is the ignorant masses of Americans who understand nothing about our history and the war that was fought against socialists like yourself. You represent the party of Santa Clause; the party who buys the ignorant masses with gifts. “Beware of socialists bearing gifts”.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 16, 2013 4:41 PM
Comment #364278
Whenever someone (alone or in a group) commits a terrorist act it is always centered on hate and/or revenge. To attempt to link such an outrageous act to Republicans, Democrats, moderates, liberals or conservatives in general is also based upon hatred. I know of no terrorist aim or goal by any of the above mentioned political group.

Oh really? Well, what if you were crazy extremist and someone told you that you are a “Slave” and therefore needed to “revolt?” That’s what was said just this past Saturday at a big “Tax Day Tea Party Rally.” Where was this said? In Boston.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 4:42 PM
Comment #364279

“As I understand it, while some folks might, if prompted, talk politics, most of the violence in Chicago isn’t about left wing violence. They’re not fighting over interpretations of marx, or bombing banks, or doing similar acts of terrorism. No, it’s good old-fashioned street crime, gangs scuffling over turf, selling drugs, etc.”

Nice try Stephen, but socialist radicals like the WUO had their roots in the Democrat run cities like Chicago. Quit trying to be a revisionist and take a look at the real terrorists in America. I might add, the black panther movement (you know, the group that threatens voters) was tied to the WUO.

“No, people like me have to be gun-grabbers!,”

Good question…do you support CT’s and NY’s latest gun laws? If you do, then the shoe fits. Do you support Feinstein’s goal to confiscate all guns? If you do, the shoe fits. Stephen, you try your best to act like an intellectual, who only wants to negotiate. But your not. Your radical views are a threat to our republic. I’m glad you only represent a small group in America, but the problem is the ignorant masses of Americans who understand nothing about our history and the war that was fought against socialists like yourself. You represent the party of Santa Clause; the party who buys the ignorant masses with gifts. “Beware of socialists bearing gifts”.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 16, 2013 4:43 PM
Comment #364280

“DSP2195-
You seem to speak a lot for me. Never bothered to get my permission for that, did you?”

Let me use your words Stephen (paraphrasing); “if you post it, it’s open for discussion”.

“The single worst terrorist attack in my memory, before 9/11, was Oklahoma City. A domestic attack, by domestic, Right-Wing Terrorists.”

Once again your on the wrong side of history. Timothy McVeigh’s political persuasion more closely identified with Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground. The WUO’s attack were on government and so was McVeigh’s. So, if anything, McVeigh was a left winger.

“I don’t need to divide my country up into acceptable targets or unacceptable. I don’t believe in one region being better than another. I think of my people as equals.”

This is an asinine statement; either you are not a liberal democrat, or you are against everything Obama and the left has tried to accomplish. We have had a black president for going on 5 years and the race problems are worse today than before he entered office. Everything the left does is based on class or race warfare. Please tell me one comment made by a liberal politician that is meant to unite people. The whole point of the OWS was class warfare. Stephen, you are one ignorant ***. Again, go peddle the BS someplace else.

When you say “your people”, you are referring to what exactly?

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 16, 2013 5:00 PM
Comment #364281
Well, what if you were crazy extremist and someone told you that you are a “Slave” and therefore needed to “revolt?”

It would most likely reinforce what I was already telling myself and thinking. I doubt him not saying it would prevent someone who is wanting to kill others to act upon it.

You know, like when anti-war protesters were calling for Bush to be assassinated? And then someone started taking shots at the White House? Or when someone flew his plane into the IRS building? Or when a soldier threw a grenade into a crowded tent? Or when someone started shooting up Ft Hood? Were we blaming the radical left anti-war people for those actions?

Someone in that state could have seen an I Love Lucy rerun, or heard their dog talking to them, or saw a vision of Jesus and snapped, it doesn’t matter what message they hear. No one is telling people to blow people at a marathon up! That’s not a ‘revolt’, especially not the type of revolt he was talking about, it’s an act of cowardice.

BTW, as is typical for the left, you take a phrase out of context and try to make it mean something else. It’s getting old…

“No one can shackle the American spirit because inside each of us and the reason we love America is because we love the capacity of people to outperform, we rely on it… So, don’t let anybody tell you that we won’t win because the truth, my friends, always wins.”

Hell, Stephen was on here some time ago talking about how if the right doesn’t start to capitulate on Obama’s agenda, the people who want those policies enacted are going to make them. To a damaged mind, what might that mean? A sane person would read the context and understand that he meant that they would vote out those in their way, but a damaged one? Are we supposed to sterilize our rhetoric because of a few crazies?

Seriously, your partisan hatred is getting old and frankly tiresome. I know you are getting off on it (read my latest comment to j2t2 in the red column) and came on here after the bombing after having been mostly absent in order to make yourself feel better but do us a favor and let a few days pass before your start peeing yourself in delight that these people died and you might get to blame your political opponents…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2013 5:01 PM
Comment #364282

You’re correct Rhinehold; liberals like Stephen want to somehow place himself on a pedestal, above the fray, and at the same time make innuendos and accusations claiming the terrorist was a Tea Party conservative. You are correct, if the terrorist turned out to be anyone other than a Muslim, it would have an orgasmic effect on the left. Honestly, we are dealing with sick, sick minds. But we must remember, Stephen’s goal is to unite “MY PEOPLE”. He’s beginning to sound like Moses…”let my people go”.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 16, 2013 5:33 PM
Comment #364285

Can anyone point us to the terrorist act that has propelled any political party into office in the US?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 16, 2013 5:49 PM
Comment #364286

Rhinehold,
I stopped visiting this blog because it has become a rightwing circle jerk chock full of assh*les and trolls, with no moderation. I knew it would still be that way, but wanted to see what the few folks here on the left who remain had to say about this tragedy — and I thought I’d share a few thoughts.

Am I surprised that you would disgustingly suggest I’m happy people died and were maimed during the tragedy in Boston? Not at all — it’s very typical. Whenever righties try their best to ignore the obvious and distance themselves from their continual streams of batshit crazy extremist rhetoric that has produced terrorism constantly for years and years on end, it’s incredibly easy for you to nastily lash out at all those who attempt to call you on it.

But I think the truth is that many of you also suspect that if this bombing was really jihad-type terrorism some group would have been crowing and taking full credit for it by now. And it would more likely have been a suicide bombing (rather than a coward setting bombs and running away before the mayhem begins). And powerful C4 or dynamite would more likely have been used (rather than small homemade bombs filled with gunpowder, ball bearings, and carpenters nails).

Indeed, this bombing is a whole lot like Anti-abortion activist Eric Rudolph’s 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympics bombing — another rightwing terror attack where another conservative nut job extremist intentionally killed and maimed a lot of people, then ran away to enjoy all the pain and horror he inflicted and eluded capture for years.

Anyway, no point sticking around any further. I’ll leave you all to once again resume the usual rightwing circlejerk of anger and trolling.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 6:06 PM
Comment #364287

Daugherty wrote; “I don’t want people to die because some leaders in Washington and in the State Capitals and local parties are too worried about scaring their way back into power to speak responsibly.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2013 4:13 PM

That is a very bold statement. Which leaders are causing people to die because of “scare” tactics? Be specific and name names and events or be thought a hyperbolic idiot.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 16, 2013 6:07 PM
Comment #364288

Adrienne…your absence went unnoticed by most. I believed you were living in a tent at some OWS rally site. Hope that is going well for you.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 16, 2013 6:14 PM
Comment #364289

Adrienne who?

Posted by: George at April 16, 2013 6:42 PM
Comment #364290

Just heard on the NEWS that Senator Wicker Rep. was sent a poison letter that was intersepted before he got it. It contained the poison Ricin. This may be coinsidence of the Boston bombings but IMO someone sure does hate this country and is going to no limits to destroy it.

Posted by: KAP at April 16, 2013 6:56 PM
Comment #364291

Since Senator Wicker is a Republican, it must be assumed the one who sent the Ricin was a left wing extremist. I am simply using Adrienne’s and Stephen’s reasoning.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 16, 2013 7:03 PM
Comment #364292

“Nice try Stephen, but socialist radicals like the WUO had their roots in the Democrat run cities like Chicago.”

Really, DSP2195? If I recall the Democratic Convention bloody riots of 1968 in Chicago, it was the Democratic big city machine of Mayor Daley that brutally suppressed the anti-war demonstrators. It was referred to as a “police riot” orchestrated by Daley in the Walker Report to suppress dissent.

The roots of the violent radical left groups of the 60s, such as the Weather Underground, were from universities not from the “Democrat run cities.” The leaders and participants were generally from the suburban middle and upper class. That is one reason why virtually none of the violent membership was ever arrested or caught during that period. Neither they, nor their families, had any prior criminal history or ties to any inner city criminal, political or social organizations.


Posted by: Rich at April 16, 2013 7:04 PM
Comment #364293

HAPPY 65TH BIRTHDAY ISRAEL.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 16, 2013 7:17 PM
Comment #364294

I might say, nice try Rich, but looks like the platform of the WUO and the SDS was the same as the modern day leftist Democratic Party, as noted below. You might want to cover ground with Stephen Daugherty; Stephen has repeatedly said the Democratic Party of the 60’s is the modern day Republican Party and the Republican Party of the 60’s is the modern day Democratic Party. He believes this because the Democratic Party of the 60’s was anti-civil rights. The attacks on “The Man” by the SDS and WUO were attacks on the Democratic Party and the Government. They were certainly not against the Republican Party; due to the fact the Democrats had been in charge for decades.

“Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was a student activist movement in the United States that was one of the main representations of the New Left.” (The New Left was a term used mainly in the United Kingdom and United States in reference to activists, educators, agitators and others in the 1960s and 1970s who sought to implement a broad range of reforms, in contrast to earlier leftist or Marxist movements that had taken a more vanguardist approach to social justice and focused mostly on labor unionization and questions of social class.[2][3] They rejected involvement with the labor movement and Marxism’s historical theory of class struggle.[4] In the U.S., the “New Left” was associated with the Hippie movement and college campus protest movements.)

“The origins of the Weathermen can be traced to the collapse and fragmentation of the Students for a Democratic Society following a split between office holders of SDS, or “National Office”, and their supporters and the Progressive Labor Party. During the factional struggle National Office leaders such as Bernardine Dohrn and Mike Klonsky began announcing their emerging perspectives, and Klonsky published a document titled “Toward a Revolutionary Youth Movement” (RYM).[4]
RYM promoted the philosophy that young workers possessed the potential to be a revolutionary force to overthrow capitalism, if not by themselves then by transmitting radical ideas to the working class. Klonsky’s document reflected the philosophy of the National Office and was eventually adopted as official SDS doctrine. During the summer of 1969, the National Office began to split. A group led by Klonsky became known as RYM II, and the other side, RYM I, was led by Dohrn and endorsed more aggressive tactics such as direct action, as some members felt that years of non-violent resistance had done little or nothing to stop the Vietnam War.[4] The Weathermen strongly sympathized with the radical Black Panthers. The police killing of Panther Fred Hampton prompted the Weatherman to issue a declaration of war upon the United States government.”

All from the link that was given, evidently not read. The ideology of the WUO and SDS was: “The thesis of Weatherman theory, as expounded in its founding document, You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows, was that “the main struggle going on in the world today is between U.S. imperialism and the national liberation struggles against it”,[23] based on Lenin’s theory of imperialism, first expounded in 1916 in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In Weatherman theory “oppressed peoples” are the creators of the wealth of empire, “and it is to them that it belongs.” “The goal of revolutionary struggle must be the control and use of this wealth in the interest of the oppressed peoples of the world.” “The goal is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism”[24]”

So in conclusion, the ideology was the same ideology of today’s modern Democratic Party. There can be no doubt, the party of JFK is not the same as the party of BHO.

But keep trying Rich, I’m sure Stephen will support your revisionist history.

Regarding the “suburban middle and upper class” roots of these radicals; yes, after a short prison sentence (or maybe not), they went on to fill little heads with mush, as college professors.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 16, 2013 7:31 PM
Comment #364295

Yikes. I see a lot of finger pointing and blaming for this bombing with no proof or evidence. There has been plenty of violence and extreme behavior from both the left and right over the years. Might I remind everyone that we do not yet know who perpetrated this horrible act. This is a time to pull together not fall apart, to stand together against senseless violence, to be real Americans. Not to try to show how one side or another is more senselessly violent than another. The extreme left certainly had its issues so has the extreme right, so have extreme Muslim foreign nationals, so have extreme Christians. They all have one thing in common - extremism. Moral certitude is never a good thing, it seems to always lead to justifying hurting other people in your cause. If this is a radical right winger it doesn’t mean that all conservatives are killers of the innocent. If this person is Muslim it doesn’t mean that all Muslims are terrorists. If it is a radical left winger it doesn’t make all liberals violent socialists.

It also doesn’t mean that we overreact and commit torture or violate the rights of anyone in the pursuit of the guilty. It isn’t worth the cost. C’mon, man up people!

Posted by: tcsned at April 16, 2013 9:03 PM
Comment #364296

For the lefties — did you hear about Sen. Wicker and the ricin letter received today? Could this be why?

Wicker was one of 16 GOP senators who voted to end a filibuster against a gun control bill on Thursday. He was also one of the 12 Senate Republicans who dined with President Barack Obama at the White House last week.

Who is Roger Wicker?

I’ve just been reading that Conservatives and Tea Party groups in Mississippi were seriously pissed about that vote. Wondering if the Boston Marathon bomber has any connection to Mississippi? Maybe this will help narrow things down for the FBI…?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 9:12 PM
Comment #364297

“There can be no doubt, the party of JFK is not the same as the party of BHO.”

Really? “The forces that fought Jefferson—and the forces that Jackson fought—and that progressive liberals have had to fight throughout our history have been the forces of selfish wealth and special privilege.

The party of progressive liberalism—the Democratic Party—believes today, as it has always believed, that it is the duty of popular government to protect and promote the interests, not of just the privileged few, but of all the groups and individuals in our Nation.” Harry Truman, 1948

Posted by: Rich at April 16, 2013 9:31 PM
Comment #364298

Glenn Thrush twitter feed: Suspect in Wicker ricin letter ID’d; someone who frequently badgers legislators reports @BresPolitico, citing Sen. McCaskill

Another person on that feed also notes:

Wicker was one of the architects of the background check (on gun sales) deal.

Might be no actual connection to the bombing, but this is interesting nonetheless.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 9:45 PM
Comment #364300

Rich, how do you explain the fact hat it was northern Republicans and Republican Abe Lincoln who fought against the rich southern Democrats over slavery?

Adrienne; Roger Wicker has an A+ rating from the NRA and allowing the gun bill to come to the floor of the Senate does not mean he will support it. In fact he is not voting for the background check bill.

tcsned; Rahm Emanuel, “never waste a crisis”.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 16, 2013 9:56 PM
Comment #364301

I’m willing to bet Wicker doesn’t have an NRA A+ rating now!

Here’s the Politico link re: the Tuesday morning ricin letter suspect:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/roger-wicker-letter-ricin-90171.html

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 10:02 PM
Comment #364302
Am I surprised that you would disgustingly suggest I’m happy people died and were maimed during the tragedy in Boston? Not at all — it’s very typical. Whenever righties try their best to ignore the obvious and distance themselves from their continual streams of batshit crazy extremist rhetoric that has produced terrorism constantly for years and years on end, it’s incredibly easy for you to nastily lash out at all those who attempt to call you on it.

I see you can dish it out but can’t take it, Adrienne. As expected.

However, for the education of everyone else (nothing I have ever said has ever gotten through to you) I am not a right wing or conservative. I am a libertarian. I belong to the one single political group that requires adherence to the NAP (Non Aggression Principle). The left and right wings can’t claim that. So to suggest that I have a stake in the bombings as far as being ‘tarred by association’, which is IMO abhorrent and disgusting, but practiced as a daily practice by both the left and the right, is a clear example of how you just label anyone who doesn’t agree with you as ‘right wing extremists’.

But I think the truth is that many of you also suspect that if this bombing was really jihad-type terrorism some group would have been crowing and taking full credit for it by now.

I’ve already stated that previously. I’ve also asked repeatedly that we wait until we find out who is responsible before trying to find blame. Most often when we are do we are wrong and end up doing nothing but suggesting that other associate with those who wanted to kill innocent people. Somehow this is ok in Adrienne-world, but turning it back on her is ‘disgusting’. I agree it is disgusting, but if one dishes something out they should be man enough to take it.

Adrienne is apparently not.

Had she heeded the pleas of others to simply let the investigation run its course and not make assumptions, we could have had much better discussions. As anyone reading this thread can see, I have been doing just that. Until repeated attempts to get Adrienne to back off met with ignorance…

Anyway, no point sticking around any further. I’ll leave you all to once again resume the usual rightwing circlejerk of anger and trolling.

Yet, you keep posting and haven’t gone anywhere, still trying to blame a group of people for something by association without even knowing the facts yet.

And all you are doing is trolling…

It’s called Projection Adrienne…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection was first conceptualized by Sigmund Freud as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world instead. Thus, projection involves projecting positive or negative qualities onto others, and is a common psychological process. Theoretically, projection and the related projective identification reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires through displacement.

So, I would suggest either accept that by posting here you are part of a community of people that are not going to agree with the constant load of hate and bile you display, ignore anyone who disagrees with you or leave to the friendly confines of TPM and DailyKOS where all of the other people who can’t stand to hear opposing views that might disagree with them are able to spew venom and hatred without fear of having any of it deflected.

Me, I’m going to CONTINUE to focus on the good of the people who responded during the bombing, the positive views that people are displaying, let the authorities investigate so we will know what is really going on so we don’t accuse someone who is innocent again (like the anthrax attacks and olympic bombings) and avoid dealing in wild ass speculations by partisan political hacks who are trying to be despicable and trade in on the deaths of others to further their political agenda. We’ve had enough of that recently and I’m sick to death of it.

And once we know who is responsible, condemn those individuals with no reservation.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2013 10:07 PM
Comment #364303

Some reading material for Adrienne:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/14/gun-rights-leader-we-snookered-other-side-toomey-m/

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 16, 2013 10:12 PM
Comment #364305

Trolling and abuse? Oh I’ve take it and then some. For many, many years on this blog.
You think I’m trolling as I look at the facts and speculate — just as EVERYONE in America is doing today after a terrorist bombing that ended in deaths and maiming of innocent people? Following a Tax Day Tea Party Rally in Boston on Saturday? And after ricin letters are received this morning by a Senator who bucked the nuts in his party and thinks that background checks for guns might be a good idea?
Good. I’m glad you all see me as a troll. After all the years in this blog filled with lots and lots of batshit crazy rightwing trolling.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 10:25 PM
Comment #364306

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/pity-poor-reporters.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

“The range of suspects and motives remains wide open,” FBI Special Agent Richard DesLauriers said, for the umpteenth time, at a press conference early Tuesday evening.

For many journalists I’ve spoken with today, this ignorance is tortuous.

Others have managed to find solace in this. Over at the American Interest, Walter Russell Mead welcomes the waiting period. “It allows us to treat the horror on its own terms, to see the pure evil of this act divorced from any rationalization or justification,” he writes. “Each hour that has gone by since the blast, each new report of heroism among the survivors and responders, each new detail about the identity of the victims clarifies the essential truth of the situation: there is no cause that can justify this deed.”

I agree with that last point, but find no similar solace. I want to know the cause — not because I’m eager to politicize the tragedy, but because I want to know where our national conversation is headed. A great deal of political, financial and emotional capital depends on the answer to that question.

Right. He doesn’t want to “politicize” it he just wants to know where the political, financial and emotional “capital” will be spent.

I have read a lot of fatuous reporting on this event but I think this one may take the cake. The idea that they are “tortured” because they don’t yet have all the information is just ridiculous. Moreover, the whining, passive tone is embarrassing. Reporters should be beyond busy right now (and many are), trying to get the story. Find new angles, write about the victims, get perspectives from people who’ve been there or from experts, contextualize it. Just waiting around for someone to tell you who did it so you know whether it’s going to be a “left” or “right” story isn’t actually journalism. I don’t even think it’s blogging. He could, for instance write about something else. It’s not the only story in the world.

This is a perfect example of what’s wrong with the beltway press. They literally see everything in the world in terms of the way it’s divided up (in their minds) politically. This is a very shallow view of humanity and it’s telling that they are anxious and “tortured” when faced with a lack of the information that would allow them to fit their news pegs neatly into their designated holes.
I’ve always thought there was a psychological dimension to this and this seems to confirm it.

This attitude is a problem and not just for the press but for all of us. The world is a messy place and we need journalism that doesn’t rigidly adhere to a particular narrative in order to understand it. It’s gotten us into a lot of trouble in recent years.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2013 10:27 PM
Comment #364307

LOL. The Washington Times. Sorry Baggers, but I won’t even click on links to the newspaper owned by the Moonies.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 10:29 PM
Comment #364308
just as EVERYONE in America is doing today

Not everyone. Not people with some decency who are instead looking at the positives displayed. Not people who don’t want to give in to the pressure to blame an entire ideology because of some moron (or small group of morons) who committed this act. Not speculating. Wanting to know but are willing to let the investigators do their job before backhandedly accusing millions of people as abetting those disturbed individuals.

You know, like you did with Sandy Hook, accusing anyone and everyone who defends the 2nd amendment and the constitution as being guilty of being responsible for what happened before you knew any of the facts.

You continue to do what you want, but don’t pretend you are doing anything else except what I’ve explained to you that you are doing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2013 10:35 PM
Comment #364309

I can see and understand all of the good that occurred within this tragedy, while at the same time understanding that what just happened is not only bad, but the worst. Just as Oklahoma City was the worst. Just as 9/11 was the worst.
You bagger nuts refuse to see it, but the Tea Party has been nothing but BAD NEWS for this nation. A political movement that has harbored stupid, paranoid, violent, and crazy people. Just like the Jihadists.
Sensible people already know this in America.
That’s why you’re automatically a suspect when we see something totally horrible and senseless go down. You stand right alongside Al Qaeda as the prime suspect.

I know this fact makes you angry and outraged. But that’s too bad. And after all, everything makes you people angry and outraged. Because the baggers want to live in the past, as this nation’s people keep moving forward and beyond you — while you stand there screaming about religion and constantly making threats, and waving your weapons around like a bunch of maniacs.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2013 11:02 PM
Comment #364310

DSP2195-
Nice try? I think if you asked those gang members whether they were following in the footsteps of the Weather Underground Organization, they’d wonder what sci-fi movie that came out of!

You do realize that many cities and towns in the Northeast were run by Republicans in the middle decades of the 1960’s right?

Pop quiz, while I’m at it: do you know who were the folks beating up on Demonstrators in Chicago in 1968? There was a reason Democrats began a decline in 1968.

As for the Black Panther movement? Let me go down the list of mistakes you have made. Let’s start with the fact that the Bush Administration cleared them. Why? Because they couldn’t find any complaints about intimidation. Which makes sense, since they were out in front of a majority black, majority Democratic polling place.

They’re not nice guys, not in the least, and I wouldn’t recommend the party ally with them, which it did not. They got harsher treatment under Obama.

But they’re also not the original Black Panthers. They have to call themselves the New Black Panthers, since the old Black Panther Party was dissolved in 1982. The actual members of the old Black Panther Party don’t actually like the New Black Panther Party, and the SPLC considers them a hate group.

As for Gun grabbing? There’s no real language for confiscating guns in there. That’s your florid imagination at work.

As for your speaking on my behalf?

Well, you seem to say a lot of things about what I believe that run contrary to my expressed views. You seem to surround me in your group of straw men, and satisfy yourself you’ve got me nailed.

I think it’s ridiculous.

Your arguments seem to revolve around taking any accusation that’s been made against the right, and transparently reversing it on the Democrats, without much revision. Just seems lazy to me, an approach that tries to substitute ontological shock, I guess, for any kind of real revelation.

GAAAASP! Democrats are Racists!

GAASSSP! Timothy McVeigh was Left Wing!

GASSSP! Obama’s election’s made race problems worse!

Everything’s based on how shocking the claim is, not how well founded. There’s no question of who’s been stirring the pot on race, no mention of the racist images going around the net, distributed by leaders in the local Republican Parties, with Obama sporting witch doctor costume and a bone through his nose, or the Obama bucks with fried chicken and watermelon on them, or other such gems.

I’m just giving you my face value beliefs. I’m not that twisty of a talker. I just say what I’m thinking.

That’s the end of my response to you, There’s only so much of your transparent contempt I want to bother myself with.

Rhinehold-
It’s not simply a matter of passionate opposition. It’s what you thin is appropriate to do in the name of that opposition.

I think the left did a pretty good job of opposing those within the party who would shame us with comments calling for assassination, or strikes against the troops, or even conspiracy theories implicating George Bush in a false flag operation during 9/11. You can’t even post anything on Daily Kos advocating the truther view without getting it taken down.

But you have folks in the top of the Republican Party, in the top of their media alleging with impunity that Obama’s trying to seize power and turn this country into a Marxist dictatorship.

They talk about Second amendment remedies if they don’t get their way. They brandish guns at rallies near where the President is speaking. They do everything they can to paint Democrats as Obama’s willing collaborators in this monstrosity of a plot.

As for what I said.

My point wasn’t a violent one. There are three parts to it: The first one is that for whatever reasons, the government is mixed. Democrats control two of the three key components of passing legislation, where as Republicans control one. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that nothing gets passed uncompromised from either side in such a configuration.

The second part is that simply doing nothing in many cases will not be an option. People are going to want issues dealt with, or they’re going to punish people in Washington for not doing it.

The third part of my point is essentially that Republicans, thanks to the Tea Party and the forces behind it, will basically be pulling teeth to try and deal with the first truth, in order to avoid running afoul of the second.

In essence? The Republicans have a dilemma: lose people from the center as they fail to deal with national priorities, or lose people from the right, because they don’t take the purist policy stances demanded by the Tea Party.

There is no threat of violence against Republicans. I only state that Republicans will suffer further electoral losses if they fail to deal with issues properly, and that current politics with the party are making this more difficult.

Republicans, in my view, don’t need to necessarily capitulate, but adapting to circumstances might seem to many Republicans as being little different.

The irony is, I think the GOP’s splintering on these issues for many of the same reasons that Democrats splintered in the Sixties and Seventies. They have many of the same kind of advantages, gerrymandering-wise, but that only deferred, did not change the ultimate fate of the majority, later on.

Power often looks the same, regardless of who holds it. When people do not properly address the issues, it doesn’t matter what label you slap on, there’s a point where people are going to have enough and will avail themselves of the means at hand to change things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2013 11:10 PM
Comment #364311

SOMEONE is comparing the Tea Party crowd to jihadists? What a child. Over 90% of the worlds conflicts (numerous sources so Google it) are caused by Muslim extremists so no the tea party crowd is not on par with these guys. Grow the hell up.

Posted by: BZA at April 17, 2013 1:46 AM
Comment #364313

This is starting to look like the unabomber all over again. I would MUCH rather have this be a terrorist organization. The only reason why Kaczynski was caught was that he kept going. I sincerely hope this isn’t the case here.

Posted by: BZA at April 17, 2013 3:15 AM
Comment #364315

BZA-
Numerous sources may just mean a bunch of people who are wrong. Right Wingers are particularly good at incestuous amplification.

I call bull**** on the world conflicts number. I can certainly count more than one civil conflict going on in the world where religion is either absent as a factor, or irrelevant to the main beef.

But here’s the thing: The Tea party seems to think it gets to dictate terms to everybody else, when it’s not the majority of its own party, much less of politically active Americans in general. It’s their rhetoric, full of threats regarding their guns, and full of propaganda that is designed to make their members feel under siege by a fictional left-wing junta, that has people like me worried, because in the past, when these mounds of bull**** have been piled up, it’s to justify violent behavior against outsiders.

No movement that depends on anger and rejection can maintain its power long if it has to calm down, and that’s probably the principle reason that being reasonable, concerning the position they are in, is not an option.

It’s a classic way extremists back themselves into a corner, and I would warn you, a classic way they eventually lose power, when they get it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 17, 2013 8:49 AM
Comment #364316

Stephen Daugherty climbs op on his righteous horse, insinuating groups like the Tea Party force their conservative beliefs on Americans. He even insinuates they do it through threats and intimidation. But let me show you an example of the censorship, intimidation, and outright lies from the socialist left:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

Kirstin Powers is no conservative; but she points out the sacred cow of the left (abortion) and the media’s complete refusal to report one of the most heinous murder cases taking place in America. If it weren’t for the Internet and a few conservative news outlets, this story would be unknown to America. We might as well live in the days f the “pony express”, where it took weeks or months to get the news.

This murdering so called doctor is an example of the mindset of the leftist socialist in America. Stephen Daugherty has repeatedly told the writers on WB of his Christian beliefs, he has repeatedly quoted Scripture, and he has repeatedly spoken of Christian love; so why don’t Stephen tell us where he stands on the abortion of live, 3rd term babies, who have taken a breath and have begin to cry, have their spinal cords severed by a pair of scissors?

Stephen wants to attack the Tea Party as being violent at heart, or that gun owners want to kill people; but you tell me who are the violent ones. This man will go to prison for murder and the left will remain silent.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 9:56 AM
Comment #364318

Stephen
You guys really have a bad case of selective hearing and selective use of facts.

Fact: Anti Bush/Republican progressives organized huge protests in major cities where they hung effigies of President Bush, destroyed our flag, called US troops murderers and screamed they were going to take their country back.
Your people, from top to bottom and blog to major TV stations, preached about Bush pulling a coup and being a fascist dictatorship. Hell, this rhetoric is still prevalent in leftist media today.
Progressives gathered in groups in their failed ‘occupy’ this or that campouts. Groups that shouted for ‘banksters’ to jump, be tarred and feathered and ran out of town. Groups responsible for mass vandalism, impeding business, assaults, rapes and illegal drugs.
And you and Adrienne want to pretend none of that ever happened? That it is somehow different when progressives are responsible? That such words and actions don’t influence progressives as you claim they influence those on the right?

In 2010, the Tea Party slowed the progressive mandate you falsely believed you were given and that is why people like you, Moore, Mathews and Adrienne need and want this bombing to be the work of some right-wing nut job. Hell, I wouldn’t doubt that the reason for all this ‘speculating’ you guys are doing is to just get the uninformed believing a right-winger is responsible, just in case it turns out differently.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2013 10:27 AM
Comment #364319

Stephen and other liberals are doing what they did back in Aug. of 2006 when Hadathia was the big news, BLAME before they got all the facts.

Posted by: KAP at April 17, 2013 11:14 AM
Comment #364321
The Baumans knew how lucky Jeff had been. “The man in the cowboy hat — he saved Jeff’s life,” Ms. Bauman said. Mr. Bauman’s eyes widened. He said: “There’s a video where he goes right to Jeff, picks him right up and puts him on the wheelchair and starts putting the tourniquet on him and pushing him out. I got to talk to this guy!”

The man in the cowboy hat, Carlos Arredondo, 52, had been handing out American flags to runners when the first explosion went off. His son Alexander was a Marine killed in Iraq in 2004, and in the years since he has handed out the flags as a tribute.

With the first blast, Mr. Arredondo jumped over the fence and ran toward the people lying on the ground. What happened next, he later recounted to a reporter: He found a young man, a spectator, whose shirt was on fire. He beat out the flames with his hands. The young man, who turned out to be Jeff Bauman, had lost the lower portion of both legs. He took off a shirt and tied it around the stump of one leg. He stayed with Mr. Bauman, comforting him, until emergency workers came to help carry him to an ambulance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/in-grisly-image-a-father-sees-his-son.html?_r=0

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 12:04 PM
Comment #364322

DSP2195-
You want to believe it couldn’t be. All I’m saying is that it could be. Not that it must be, has to be, or anything like that. You seem to get off on being offended.

I think the Kermit Gosnell case is shocking, and the man should serve life imprisonment in the electric chair. As for why it’s not a big deal?

Well, I think it is. But the reason the media didn’t pick up on it was because it wasn’t public violence. It wasn’t somebody murdered on the streets.

What he did, in his decades of running that hellhole of a clinic, was off the books, out of sight. Abortion opponents like you react in horror, but in your arrogance, you assume nobody else does.

If anything else, this should prompt Pennsylvania to crack down, to enforce the laws on the books, which by the way, even short of killing viable children, doing abortions on normal children in their third trimester, he was in violation of.

This case is EASY to find horrifying. No abortion proponents look at that diseased, bloodstained operation and see anything they like.

A good, well regulated clinic should look nothing like, and do nothing like what that psychopath had in operation.

Why do you assume that I would approve of what he did? Are you just that biased? Are you just that hopped up on your own sense of moral superiority?

There’s a impulse on the right to have people suffer for their mistakes, and I don’t find that all too Christian myself. Jesus brings us salvation from suffering for our sins. If he took your attitude, he’d leave us all for the hellfire.

You are blind to the humanity of your fellow human beings.

kctim-

Fact: Anti Bush/Republican progressives organized huge protests in major cities where they hung effigies of President Bush, destroyed our flag, called US troops murderers and screamed they were going to take their country back.

Talk about selective use of facts. We did organize huge protests, but I don’t remember the largest part of them being anything else than a march. Few burned flags, or tormented poor Bush in effigy. You characterize the whole movement with the behavior of a few.

There was, and perhaps still is a regular feature on Daily Kos run in SUPPORT of the troops, getting stuff to them. People like me advocated for helping ours soldiers both when they were over there, and now that we’re home. We didn’t go around calling soldiers murderers, as a matter of course.

Some people used that overwrought rhetoric, but that’s inevitable. We didn’t encourage that kind of language, though, among the leaders.

As for OWS?

It was a lot more peaceful and a lot less punkish than you’d suggest. They didn’t like Wall Street, but who does these days?

As for false mandates?

I don’t think they were. Republicans obstructed, then came around and pushed a wave of panic and pent up hatred. And for what? To just go BACK TO BUSINESS AS USUAL!

That’s the big joke about this. You folks thought you were running a revolution. Nope. You were rushing a bunch of idiots back into power, that’s what you were doing. But it was all too hasty, and your people are paying for it.

The real false mandate is yours. There’s no mandate to put the deficits and debt first. There’s no mandate to crack down on abortion. There’s no mandate to avoid additional gun laws. There’s no mandate to endanger our economy with the Debt Ceiling mess.

But that doesn’t worry you. Worrying about mandates, about governing in a way that the majority of the public is what people like Democrats do. Republicans and conservatives get to believe that they can just do anything they want to, as long as they didn’t lose the election entirely.

As for Haditha, we got the story in. If you want to distort that into some sort of general hatred for the truth, I can’t stop you. But in my mind, discouraging such events, maintaining order and disciplines helps other soldiers to avoid the kind of backlash that events like Abu Ghraib and this create. There’s quite a bit of evidence that something truly awful occured, and our soldiers were involved. I don’t buy for a second that they covered up somebody else’s crime in an attempt to cover their asses. They deliberately tried to disguise this event as the result of an IED, and they were brought to court martial because that cover fell apart.

There’s no good to come from covering for such behavior, because the citizens of Iraq were not fooled, and they in turned would attack our soldiers for this kind of atrocity. It’s one thing to understand the combat stresses that lead to events like this in war, it’s another to allow such impulses free rein and unofficial or official sanction. This is precisely the kind of response that insurgencies like this TRY to provoke, and we played into their hands any time we allowed things like this to occur.

We are not the mafia. We do not protect our soldiers by keeping a code of science. Our soldiers are not criminals. We shouldn’t assume that these things just simply happen, and turn a blind eye.

With obvious exceptions, our soldiers have a body of laws that, given the treaties we’ve signed, that we’re obligated to follow, especially if we want others to follow it in war with us. Haditha should have been better dealt with, and trying to cover it up… well, it only made things worse.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 17, 2013 12:20 PM
Comment #364323

No Stephen, it’s not bull****. You sound like an apologist for Muslim extremists. Look carefully through this list and don’t let facts scare you: http://www.warsintheworld.com/?page=static1258254223 Many of the guerilla terrorist groups in Africa have ties to Muslim groups.

Tell everyone here why you are trying to downplay the problem of muslim extremism across this planet. There’s not a continent where Muslim factions aren’t killing groups of people. That is a FACT and stop trying to say otherwise. They are bar none the worlds largest problem in terms of violence and death.

Posted by: BZA at April 17, 2013 12:30 PM
Comment #364325

Ricin letter sent to Obama.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2013 1:00 PM
Comment #364326

Stephen

“You characterize the whole movement with the behavior of a few.”

Now why does that sound familiar? Oh, that’s right, YOU take the actions of a few and attribute those actions to the entire Tea Party.

“Some people used that overwrought rhetoric, but that’s inevitable. We didn’t encourage that kind of language, though, among the leaders.”

BS. Leftist ‘leaders’ were calling our troops murderers, our President a war-monger, a racist etc…
Even today, leftist ‘leaders’ are saying pro 2nd Amendment people are responsible for gun deaths and have blood on our hands. That pro Constitution people are terrorists, racists and have declared some kind of war on women.

“As for OWS?
It was a lot more peaceful and a lot less punkish than you’d suggest. They didn’t like Wall Street, but who does these days?”

As is the Tea Party, but that doesn’t stop you from proclaiming they are racist terrorists who “brandish” weapons.

“As for false mandates?”

Yes, false mandate. Your people thought everybody would just sit back and let you have your way. Let you implement policies they disagreed with. That everybody would fear being labeled a racist if they dared not let you push your progressive agenda onto the country. Didn’t quite work out that way, did it.

You know, if you would open your eyes, you would see that people are fighting against what YOUR people are trying to do, NOT for pushing their agenda onto everybody else.
People are against out of control debt because such debt crushes countries and the high taxes needed to pay for that debt crushes individuals.
If your people could come up with gun laws that respect the 2nd Amendment and actually impacted gun violence, maybe people would support it.

“But that doesn’t worry you. Worrying about mandates, about governing in a way that the majority of the public is what people like Democrats do…”

That is because you want a majority rules democracy where people on the right want a representative Republic. You expect government to push your agenda and we expect government to protect from you pushing it onto us.

Somebody else mentioned Haditha, sorry.

“We are not the mafia. We do not protect our soldiers by keeping a code of science. Our soldiers are not criminals. We shouldn’t assume that these things just simply happen, and turn a blind eye.”

An innocent until proven guilty attitude wouldn’t hurt you though.

“With obvious exceptions, our soldiers have a body of laws that, given the treaties we’ve signed, that we’re obligated to follow,”

I know, I lived by them for ten years.

“especially if we want others to follow it in war with us.”

They don’t and they won’t, so stop pretending that war will be neat and pretty if we crucify our own.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2013 1:02 PM
Comment #364327
about governing in a way that the majority of the public is what people like Democrats do…”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-think-gun-control-important-problem

Only 4 percent of Americans think guns and gun control are an important problem facing the country, according to Gallup, and far more Americans are concerned about the economy, unemployment and the federal debt.

No, the Democrats are not interested in serving what the majority of americans want, just what they think they want. OR better yet, what they want the majority of americans to want.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 1:06 PM
Comment #364330

Good stuff Rhinehold…good stuff

Posted by: BZA at April 17, 2013 1:39 PM
Comment #364333

From the pictures on the CNN site, it looks like a Fox Racing bag was used for the first bomb.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130417115558-04-evidence-horizontal-gallery.jpg

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 1:50 PM
Comment #364334

Now they are saying they have an arrest…

http://fox59.com/2013/04/17/authorities-arrest-suspect-in-boston-bombings-source-says/#axzz2QkA1kBPf

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 1:57 PM
Comment #364335

kctim-
If one of my people said something like what some of these people said in the Tea Party, not only would you be all over them, but we would be all over them, too. There’s a reason that Cynthia McKinney isn’t in a Democratic seat anymore.

You really overestimate our taste for controversy.

What we have are leaders in the Tea Party talking about stolen elections, marxist takeovers, Death tribunals for granny and poor little babies like Trig. Contrary to the Democrats, Republicans and Conservatives are more likely to try and normalize the controversial statement, try and claim that the legitimate rape comment or the comment about Muslims or Immigrants is perfectly reasonable.

That, rather than realize that not only is rhetoric like this embarrassing, but in too many cases leads followers of the group towards worse than simply embarrassing behavior.

When a leader starts talking about second amendment solutions, when they talk about some sort of event like the Nazi’s takeover of Germany going on, you get a situation where certain people are going to get the idea that it is fully legitimate to take action beyond simply the political arena, and even there, to try and put their thumbs on the scales.

I’m not saying every Republican thinks this way. But how many does it really take to do something ugly?

I don’t see Democrats in the leadership making the kind of threats or displaying the kind of aggression that I see from the right. I know folks don’t want to admit that. They want to believe they’re always in the right. But whoever it turns out to be, if the Right doesn’t want to be the first on a list of suspects, it needs to calm down. Whatever sensible they say in anger, they can repeat more calmly, without being less conservative for it.

As for the rules of war? If we stop following them, the first response we get back from an enemy who violates them is that we violated them, too. We can’t shame them in the international community without bringing shame on ourselves. Stop thinking in terms of justifying your behavior, there is plenty of ugly stuff you can get into if your justification for what you’re doing is that somebody else did it, too. When we lambasted Saddam Hussein for torturing prisoners, we had moral standing to do so. But now? Two words will haunt any attempt to hold bad people accountable for their atrocities: enhanced interrogation.

Rhinehold-
By your logic, we should also drop all this talk about deficit reduction, because according to a recent CBS news poll only 9% believe that deficit reduction is a major priority.

You have to be on the look out for arguments that are essentially rhetorical tricks. They’re nice for the PR hacks to deliver, but they’ll hurt people who are actually debating facts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 17, 2013 2:25 PM
Comment #364336

It looks like they are now walking back the fact that they have someone in custody, that it was a misunderstanding within law enforcement.

Right now all we know is that they have picture/video of the individual who placed the first bomb and are working to identifying him.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 2:32 PM
Comment #364337
By your logic, we should also drop all this talk about deficit reduction

No, you are the one who has maintained repeatedly that the Democrats are just trying to do what the public wants. I’ve explained that that rhetoric is not true. From there, you want to twist what I am saying to try and deflect it. I am not saying we should be looking at polling to decide what to work on, but it does point out that the rhetoric that you have bought into is not valid.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 2:39 PM
Comment #364338

Daugherty writes; “But here’s the thing: The Tea party seems to think it gets to dictate terms to everybody else, when it’s not the majority of its own party, much less of politically active Americans in general. It’s their rhetoric, full of threats regarding their guns, and full of propaganda that is designed to make their members feel under siege by a fictional left-wing junta, that has people like me worried, because in the past, when these mounds of bull**** have been piled up, it’s to justify violent behavior against outsiders.”

Then, writing about progressive protests against Bush he writes; “You characterize the whole movement with the behavior of a few.”

From his own writing Doughboy dons his T-shirt emblazoned with a huge scarlet “H” to signify to all who read his comments that he is a first class hypocrite.

Doughboy and his liberal friends are fond of advocating mandates from the people to support their political positions. They grab these mandates from the magicians hat and proclaim them as truth. I can find no mention in the Constitution of government by mandate or the latest public polling results.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2013 2:40 PM
Comment #364339

Well, it looks like the Feds have a suspect. I also saw on Imgur that the internet sleuths have picked out a couple of possibilities from the crowd pics. One looks like a sloppy, middle-aged, white guy and the other looks to be of Middle Eastern heritage.

http://imgur.com/a/sUrnA

We’ll see if one of these guys turns out be the one. Hopefully this gets resolved soon. Looks like the Ricin mailer has targeted the President. What a wonderful world.

Posted by: tcsned at April 17, 2013 2:53 PM
Comment #364340

Boston Police Special Ops taking up positions in Kendall Square, blocking Broadway. Also Moakley Courthouse also being evacuated.

Posted by: BZA at April 17, 2013 3:14 PM
Comment #364341

Rhinehold-
Except public approval for background checks is near universal, at 90%. 5% is a priority number. It’s a different question, with different results.

As for the video and photographic evidence? Looks compelling to me, but… as a media-type person, I’d say hold off. One of my professors first rules was “The Camera ALWAYS lies.”, and I trust that to be true. Folks can have similar backpacks, especially if a certain brand is in style, and camera angles can be deceptive. We’re trying to process a lot out of two dimensional photos which lack depth, and that can be tricky.

Royal Flush-
Ours is, by its nature, a government by consensus-making. Nothing gets done unless multiple parties, even multiple political parties are in agreement.

Trying to push against that, get back in power in a real hurry, Republicans have been mashing down all the liberal hate/fear buttons, and mashing them down hard.

If it turns out that somebody took that hate and fear, and reacted against it, your side will regret having relied so much on the dark side of human emotion, if for no more profound reason than Seth McFarlane now regrets putting together a show where Peter Griffin runs over a bunch of Boston Marathoners and inadvertantly helps set off a terrorist bomb (This is a FOX show, by the way!)

But if, as is equally possible, somebody else did it? You’re still rolling the dice.

Trouble is, you haven’t developed the skillset or the toolset for presenting your policies to the public without having this picture of evil Democrats to contrast it against. So you fight the notion that you’d have to tone things down, because somewhere deep down, you’d know you’d be at a disadvantage if you can’t scare people about us with irresponsible rhetoric.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 17, 2013 3:15 PM
Comment #364342

Stephen, speaking of misinformation that Family Guy episode you put in there was really someone who put two separate episodes together to create that scenario. You’re incorrect.

Posted by: BZA at April 17, 2013 3:23 PM
Comment #364343

Stephen

Sigh. Do you choose to be blinded by partisanship or are you really this oblivious to what goes on?
You guys still talk about Bush stealing the election. You still talk about how Bush, fascism and some theocracy takeover. Women dying from back alley abortions and poor little black babies. Despite what you might think, you are just as guilty as anyone else in trying to “normalize” statements that fall in line with your personal beliefs.

“When a leader starts talking about second amendment solutions, when they talk about some sort of event like the Nazi’s takeover of Germany going on, you get a situation where certain people are going to get the idea that it is fully legitimate to take action beyond simply the political arena, and even there, to try and put their thumbs on the scales.”

But telling people Republicans want to put them back in chains, doesn’t? What about telling people that Republicans have blood on their hands for all gun deaths? Telling people Republicans have declared war on them? That Republicans want their babies to starve? That the “1%” stole their money?
None of that could cause somebody to act beyond the political arena, could it.

“I don’t see Democrats in the leadership making the kind of threats or displaying the kind of aggression that I see from the right.”

Of course you don’t, you support what they are saying.

“As for the rules of war? If we stop following them, the first response we get back from an enemy who violates them is that we violated them, too. We can’t shame them in the international community without bringing shame on ourselves.”

Who said anything about not following the rules of war? I merely stated that our soldiers come before our enemy. Even when the line is crossed.

I’m going to give you a little info that you won’t find in your PC books.
If you worry about having to justify your behavior while in combat, you will end up dead. You don’t worry about “moral standing,” you worry about surviving. Leaders worry about making sure “rules” are followed, you worry about not being killed. Leaders worry about what others think, you worry about your brothers living.

“But now? Two words will haunt any attempt to hold bad people accountable for their atrocities: enhanced interrogation”

Not in the real world, Stephen. If you blow up or behead Americans, you will be held accountable, no matter how haunted some people might be over our treatment of bad people.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2013 3:26 PM
Comment #364344

SD writes; “Royal Flush-
Ours is, by its nature, a government by consensus-making.”

I guess for you that is the same as a fleeting “mandate” or public poll.

SD writes; “Trouble is, you haven’t developed the skillset or the toolset for presenting your policies to the public without having this picture of evil Democrats to contrast it against.”

Conservatives policies are simple…follow the Constitution and promote freedom and liberty. If dems and libs look evil in light of those principles and policies…too bad.


Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2013 3:40 PM
Comment #364346

Boston bombing investigators focus on possible suspect in surveillance video

At the site of what became the second explosion on Monday, surveillance video captured a white man placing a backpack on the ground while talking on a cell phone, sources told CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.

The man was wearing a black jacket, a grey hooded sweatshirt and a white or off-white baseball cap backwards. He is 6 feet or 6-feet-2-inches tall with a medium build.

Also, after the media wrongly announced that an arrest had taken place this happened:
Federal Courthouse Evacuated After Bomb Threat

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2013 3:50 PM
Comment #364347

Adrienne…perhaps some of us have a radio or TV.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2013 3:52 PM
Comment #364348

“Well, I think it is. But the reason the media didn’t pick up on it was because it wasn’t public violence. It wasn’t somebody murdered on the streets…

Why do you assume that I would approve of what he did? Are you just that biased? Are you just that hopped up on your own sense of moral superiority?”

Well, let’s see Stephen…you support Obama (no matter what he does or has done) and Obama voted, as a Senator in IL, to support the killing of aborted-alive babies in 2001, 2002, 2003. In essence Obama supported the same things Kermit Gosnell did at his clinic. Since you support Obama, then you also support and approve of what Gosnell did.

As for the media; covering the Gosnell case would do nothing to support their anti-abortion agenda. Abortion being one of the darlings of the left.

“There’s a impulse on the right to have people suffer for their mistakes,”

This coming from Stephen Daugherty, who has done his best to blame the Tea Party and conservatives for the current Boston terrorist attacks.

“Rhinehold-
Except public approval for background checks is near universal, at 90%.”

Stephen, we already have background checks. I have been listening to the debates on cspan; one idiot democrat even said we need to shut down the buying of guns on the internet. Guess what, you can’t buy a gun on the internet. Guns must be bought through a physical dealer, meaning you go into the store.

Let me ask Stephen once again; what part of the current background check bill, being voted on today, would have prevented the shootings of the past few years?

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 3:53 PM
Comment #364349

Yeah RF, perhaps. But rightwingers only watch Fox and CNN, and they just made fools of themselves announcing arrests that weren’t made.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2013 3:59 PM
Comment #364350

Is CNN now conservative Adrienne?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2013 4:07 PM
Comment #364351

Stephen supports democraps like Sheila Jackson Lee. How do these idiots get elected? What an embarrassment when someone like this steps to the microphone of the Congress. I bet the elitist democrats cringe. Like Stephen, this woman has no concept of what is going on in the world.

“Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee: “Don’t Condemn The Gangbangers.” Guns Made Them Do It!”

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/04/12164-democrat-sheila-jackson-lee-dont-condemn-the-gangbangers-guns-made-them-do-it/

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 4:11 PM
Comment #364352

CNN is a conservative network now? Wow, breaking news right here on WatchBlog.

Posted by: BZA at April 17, 2013 4:14 PM
Comment #364353

DSP, if brains were gunpowder, Sheila Jackson wouldn’t have enough to blow her nose.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2013 4:14 PM
Comment #364354

Royal; I believe you violated 2 PC rules: you mentioned gun powder and Sheila Jackson having a brain. Don’t you now that kids are being expelled from school for making their pop tarts look like a gun.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 4:20 PM
Comment #364355

Mea Coulpa

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2013 4:22 PM
Comment #364357

Apparently AP and the BBC are ‘rightwing news sources’ too…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 4:28 PM
Comment #364358

Manchin/Toomey Amendment shot down 54 to 46; short of the 60 votes needed.

2nd vote on Grassley Amendment.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 4:31 PM
Comment #364359

Congress votes to protect a criminal’s ability to buy weapons online with no background checks — for FREEDUMB!

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2013 4:50 PM
Comment #364360

Yea you can buy a gun online Adrienne but you still have to go through the same thing you would if you went to the gun shop and AS A MATTER OF FACT you have to have it shipped to a gun shop to get it. So talk about DUMB!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at April 17, 2013 4:55 PM
Comment #364361

I guess they didn’t follow the “mandate” mentioned by Doughboy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2013 4:58 PM
Comment #364362

Perhaps Adrienne could offer proof of her last statement. I can offer this:

You CAN purchase a gun online without a license but…. in order to take possession of the gun you need to have the gun shipped to a FFL (Federal firearms license holder). To get the gun from the FFL, you have to provide your license (or other suitable government issued I.D.) and fill out form # 4473 before you can take possession.

There is an exception though. If the gun you are buying is a black powder or antique gun (as defined by federal law) you do NOT need to go through a FFL to acquire it.

You can buy a black powder gun without a license.

Here is more detailed information:http://corneredcat.com/Legal/buy.aspx”

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100316141548AAz6WR1

So as usual, Adrienne has no concept of the law and neither do most democrap politicians.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 5:01 PM
Comment #364363

Reid voted against background checks; must be a maneuverable reason.

Grassley amendment defeated.

Leahy/Collins gun purchase amendment defeated.

Cornyn conceal carry amendment being voted on now;

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 5:10 PM
Comment #364364

What?… 20 minutes from her post and Adrianne has no response?

Posted by: tdobson at April 17, 2013 5:10 PM
Comment #364365

It must have dawned on her that she was wrong….or she is on the dailykos looking for an appropriate left wing answer.

The Cornyn CCW reciprocity amendment has failed.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 5:19 PM
Comment #364366

Feinstein has 2 minutes to go spastic about her assault gun ban amendment.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 5:23 PM
Comment #364367

You baggers are completely full of shit — as usual.

Bloomberg: Defeat Of Background Check Bill ‘A Huge Victory’ For Criminals

Bloomberg is right about the enormous percentage of Americans who supported these background checks. Case in point:
Most back new gun, immigration laws, Post-ABC poll shows

The only bright side to this is knowing that stymieing the will of the people again and again the way the GOP is doing and sucking up to the NRA gun-ghouls will not bode well for them in future elections.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2013 5:47 PM
Comment #364369

As I recall Adrienne, the “will of the people” was and is against obamacare.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2013 5:52 PM
Comment #364370

How many criminals go through background checks to buy a gun Adrienne?

Posted by: KAP at April 17, 2013 5:53 PM
Comment #364371

Another dumb article Adreienne criminals buy guns from other criminals or steal them, that’s why they are called criminals. They have no need to go through background checks that way.

Posted by: KAP at April 17, 2013 5:59 PM
Comment #364372

http://books.google.com/books?id=sQxNVhV-W7oC&pg=PA109&dq=%22Preventing+the+Diversion+of+Guns%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_5htUevVO-b52AWJkYHgAQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Preventing%20the%20Diversion%20of%20Guns%22&f=false

In the 2004 survey, state prison inmates who had used guns to commit crimes said they got them from the following sources:

Friends or family members: 39.5%
Street or black market suppliers: 37.5%
Licensed gun dealers: 11.4%
Theft: 9.9%
Gun shows or flea markets: 1.7%

There was no mention of the Internet.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 6:02 PM
Comment #364373

I’m not going to feed you bagger gun-nut trolls.
Just be happy that you and the NRA won — at least today.
You’ll lose eventually.

It now appears that the ricin letters came from the same source — out of Memphis, Tennesee — and both said the same thing:
“To see a wrong and not expose it, is to become a silent partner to its continuance.” And both are signed, “I am KC and I approve this message.”
Obviously this dumbass thinks sending poison to people through the mail isn’t “wrong.”

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2013 6:22 PM
Comment #364374

Interesting survey Rhinehold. 37.5 + 9.9 = 47.4 got guns illegally.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2013 6:22 PM
Comment #364375

If people lose that right Adrienne what is next?

Posted by: KAP at April 17, 2013 6:27 PM
Comment #364376

Is it true that Harry Reid voted against the gun bill?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2013 6:43 PM
Comment #364377

Yes…according to Huff Post Reid was a no vote…lol

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2013 7:08 PM
Comment #364378

Rhinehold, typically I agree with you but go to backpage.com and do a search for guns. You can’t use a 2004 study because it’s too old regarding online sales.

Posted by: BZA at April 17, 2013 7:15 PM
Comment #364379

“Interesting survey Rhinehold. 37.5 + 9.9 = 47.4 got guns illegally.”

Yes, Royal Flush, but what is more interesting is that 53% got the guns from legal sources. The majority of guns were not acquired through black market sales.

If closing off over half of the opportunities for criminal acquisition of guns is not a laudable goal, then I give up.

Posted by: Rich at April 17, 2013 8:01 PM
Comment #364380

Rich,

No one is saying that we shouldn’t try to find a way to keep criminals from getting ahold of weapons, but the question is how to do it without violating the rights of millions of law abiding peaceful citizens.

Since 53% of the criminals surveyed got their guns through legal means, that means they passed a background check and were legally allowed to own the gun. So, tell me, how do you stop that?

Last I knew, we aren’t able to tell who is going to become a criminal or perform a criminal act before they do so. Has there been an advance in precognition that I am unaware of?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 8:35 PM
Comment #364381

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/tainted-letter-intercepted/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

An arrest has been made in connection with possibly contaminated letters sent to President Obama and Sen. Roger Wicker, the Department of Justice said Wednesday.

Paul Kevin Curtis was arrested by the FBI at his home in Corinth, Mississippi, the department said in a statement.
Discovered Tuesday, the letters were addressed to Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, and to Obama.

The justice department release said a third letter was sent to a Mississippi justice official.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 8:52 PM
Comment #364383

Rhinehold,

No, we have not made any great advances in precognition. But, we do have the ability to acquire and manage data on past criminal, mental health behavior and other data that would red flag a prospective purchaser or recipient of a firearm. Past behavior is an excellent predictor of future behavior.

Requiring all gun transactions to be brokered through a licensed gun dealer would close a huge gap in the current background check procedures. Sure, it would be an inconvenience for family and friend transactions. But, as your data shows, the most prevalent method by which criminals acquire guns is through friends and family.

Posted by: Rich at April 17, 2013 9:24 PM
Comment #364388

Adrienne said:

“You baggers are completely full of shit — as usual.”

Real lady like…

“Bloomberg: Defeat Of Background Check Bill ‘A Huge Victory’ For Criminals
Bloomberg is right about the enormous percentage of Americans who supported these background checks. Case in point:
Most back new gun, immigration laws, Post-ABC poll shows”

Bloomberg is out millions of $ of his own for campaigning against 2nd Amendment rights, and Obama wasted millions $ of tax dollars flying around the country and campaigning for gun control. Hahahaha

“The only bright side to this is knowing that stymieing the will of the people again and again the way the GOP is doing and sucking up to the NRA gun-ghouls will not bode well for them in future elections.”
Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2013 5:47 PM

Uhh, how many Democrap Senators against Obama’s will???

“I’m not going to feed you bagger gun-nut trolls.
Just be happy that you and the NRA won — at least today.
You’ll lose eventually.”

Actually, Adrienne, the NRA has quite a network online and through email. The notices are sent out, and MILLIONS (that’s right, MILLIONS) begin to contact their reps. Works like a well-oiled machine; and as an NRA member, I did my part.

““To see a wrong and not expose it, is to become a silent partner to its continuance.” And both are signed, “I am KC and I approve this message.”
Obviously this dumbass thinks sending poison to people through the mail isn’t “wrong.”
Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2013 6:22 PM

KC….Hmmmm….Kansas City…Knights of Columbus…..???

Sounds like some kind of nut to me, but I sure Adrienne could relate to him.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 9:26 PM
Comment #364389

Adrienne said:

“You baggers are completely full of shit — as usual.”

Real lady like…

“Bloomberg: Defeat Of Background Check Bill ‘A Huge Victory’ For Criminals
Bloomberg is right about the enormous percentage of Americans who supported these background checks. Case in point:
Most back new gun, immigration laws, Post-ABC poll shows”

Bloomberg is out millions of $ of his own for campaigning against 2nd Amendment rights, and Obama wasted millions $ of tax dollars flying around the country and campaigning for gun control. Hahahaha

“The only bright side to this is knowing that stymieing the will of the people again and again the way the GOP is doing and sucking up to the NRA gun-ghouls will not bode well for them in future elections.”
Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2013 5:47 PM

Uhh, how many Democrap Senators against Obama’s will???

“I’m not going to feed you bagger gun-nut trolls.
Just be happy that you and the NRA won — at least today.
You’ll lose eventually.”

Actually, Adrienne, the NRA has quite a network online and through email. The notices are sent out, and MILLIONS (that’s right, MILLIONS) begin to contact their reps. Works like a well-oiled machine; and as an NRA member, I did my part.

““To see a wrong and not expose it, is to become a silent partner to its continuance.” And both are signed, “I am KC and I approve this message.”
Obviously this dumbass thinks sending poison to people through the mail isn’t “wrong.”
Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2013 6:22 PM

KC….Hmmmm….Kansas City…Knights of Columbus…..???

Sounds like some kind of nut to me, but I sure Adrienne could relate to him.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 9:26 PM
Comment #364396

Royal, if memory serves me correct, there is something about Reid voting against his own Bill that allows him to bring it up at another time. I not quite sure.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 9:30 PM
Comment #364398

Except this current amendment that was voted down exempts most of those kinds of sales.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to— `(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren; `(B) a transfer made from a decedent’s estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;

There is also no ‘online’ purchasing hole. If you buy a gun online, it cannot be shipped to anyone other than a licensed dealer who will do a background check before giving it to you.

You can choose to meet up with someone and do the deal in person, but this proposed law didn’t affect those sales either. It can only deal with interstate sales, which meeting in person would not be. And selling the weapon to someone who is not legally allowed to own a gun (ie, pass a background check) is already illegal.

In fact, the only line of this bill that I think is something that should be put into place that would help would be:

shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee accordance with paragraph

Meaning that if an unlicensed person sells to an unlicensed person, they have to maintain a record of the transaction. This may help after the fact to track down guns used in some crime, but I don’t think it would prevent anyone wanting to get a gun from getting one.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 9:33 PM
Comment #364399
KC….Hmmmm….Kansas City…Knights of Columbus…..???

Paul Kevin Curtis

BTW, there may not be ricin in the letters, they are doing more definitive tests. And the amount that was there would have not been harmful most likely.

It’s also been ruled out to have anything to do with marathon bombing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 9:37 PM
Comment #364400

“Except this current amendment that was voted down exempts most of those kinds of sales.”

Understand. Also understand the limits to the reach of federal law, i.e., intrastate transactions. I just think that it would make a lot of sense to require all gun transactions to be through a licensed dealer whereby a background check can be made on all gun transactions.

Posted by: Rich at April 17, 2013 9:43 PM
Comment #364401

Rich, I’m not necessarily opposed to that, it just wasn’t what this bill was about. It makes Obama’s petulant speech more annoying because he complains that his ‘opponents’ couldn’t make their case, yet he has not made his either. He has given information that is provably false about it and otherwise just brought up emotion, victims and rhetoric. I think had he and those who wrote the bill had focused more on that and then made that actual case logically and factually, they would have much more of a leg to stand on.

All it does now, to me, is make Obama look like he is wanting laws based on emotive rhetoric and trying to campaign for the midterm elections. I want more out of a president than that. :/

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2013 9:50 PM
Comment #364402

Rhinehold; could the record of the transfer between unlicensed people be a federal record, or is it talking about the seller keeping a record? If it is federal, then are we talking the beginnings of a national gun registry?

The problem Obama has is, no one trusts him or the feds to not take advantage of any laws passed.

Case in point: the IRS saying they have the right to monitor the social media, texts, and emails.

Watch Obama’s near meltdown in his garden response:

http://gawker.com/5994939/obama-says-gun-lobby-willfully-lied-after-senates-gun-vote

The look on Biden’s face is priceless. Obama has wasted all his energy campaigning with the parents of the Sandy Hook victims. Poor Gabby Gifford is standing next to Obama with a look on her face of, where am I? Obama has played this game so many times, the American people are becoming wise to him. He stood there and completely lied. Gun control is not what’s on the mind of Americans and neither is amnesty. Obama brought up the mental health issue and lied about that too; it was part of the Grassley Amendment, and the dems shot it down. I would be angry if it was a Republican who stood there with the families of the victims. Obama is either campaigning or trying to play on people’s emotions. But then, how many times has it been brought out that democrats do not think logically, they think with emotion. Their favorite words are “it’s not fair”.

We can thank God, our Republic worked perfectly today. Bad laws were being voted on and constituents phoned, texted, and emailed their reps. Just the way it should work. Dems from red states got an ear full and the Senators knew where their bread was buttered.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 10:16 PM
Comment #364404

Note to conservatives: context defenses only work if the context makes something less offensive.

McFarlane’s cartoon included two separate incidents, one where Peter Griffin ran over a swath of marathon runners, the other where he inadvertently set off a terrorist bomb by using a cell phone his new terrorist friends had given him. Both jokes are in poor taste, but that’s the show for you. Its stock in trade, if you will.

Somebody will have to explain to me how they can whine about the fringe of their political movement being potential suspects in a terror case when Republicans accuse Democrats of being fifth column subversives for everybody from the communists to Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Really, you want my opinion? If you’re that sore, say that it could be a left winger for all we know, an OWSer gone wild! You wouldn’t really have a recent terrorist attack with high casualties to talk about, but it would be fair, and it would also be a potential outcome that I’ve pointed out myself.

I’m basically arguing against the political correctness, which the Republicans have denied others the right to, which they want to claim for themselves, in spite of Oklahoma City and other incidents. They want to pretend that their movement doesn’t have its extremists. Democrats won’t say that during the Sixties and seventies that we didn’t have our share of extremist groups. But Republicans apparently aren’t prepared to be that honest with themselves.

kctim-
Do you hear us talking about our people being rounded up in camps? Death Panels? Both sides have exaggerated or strong rhetoric, but the right has taken it to greatest intensity, and more importantly, you hear a lot of this rhetoric from people who are supposed to be the leaders, not just individuals with no political career to lose. When a Democrat says something obnoxious, I bet you they are often shut up by their own party, and forced to retract the comment.

As far as the soldiers go? As far as getting people?

I want to outwit them, not just kill them. I want to discredit them, not just confront them. I don’t want to destroy the personnel of their movement, I want to gut it’s sustainability forever. And you know what? My attitude with Bin Laden is that I wanted the son of a bitch captured or dead sooner so the effect could be more profound and discouraging for his people. I wanted our wars short and to the point, not perseverative, building up resentments against us and sinking the areas into greater chaos as war went back and forth over territory.

It isn’t merely about rules, but striking while the iron is hot, and to greatest effect. My problem with Bush is that he was a slacker about terrorism. He was too quick to declare victory, and to slow to actually grasp it.

I want my nation to actual represent the values it claims to uphold. These are constraints, yes, and not always followable, but by observing constraints, by making the attempt to do so, we further our strategic interests, and we make ourselves a positive example for the freedom and the liberty, and the character we believe ourselves to be the model for.

If you blow up or behead Americans, of course I want justice to come to you. But I will do my absolute best to make sure that it comes to you in a way that furthers my aims, not yours. I want to glorify civilization, rule of law, and other such values that make us better than these people, not wallow in the depravity of my enemies. I want to be truly better than them.

Rhinehold-
Do you really want me to come up with a list of the kind of atrocious comments that I see online? I could easily fill ten times that number! You don’t impress me.

And yes, some look at the Republicans, and think that what they’re doing is a bit racist.

Could this be a reason?

Could this?

I’ve seen photos sent by local Republicans of Obama in a witch doctor outfit with a bone through his nose. I’ve seen a mannequin of him with a watermelon in his hands. I’ve seen photos of him in wifebeater, with no this, no that, and him saying, “come on baby take me back!”

The Republicans are trying to force people to ignore this shameful behavior by claiming Democrats are playing the race card, even though it’s their members who are taking out these kinds of images, putting them to shame.

There is a rich trove of black stereotypes about welfare and everything else that gets trotted out when people talk about Obama, and those blacks who have been on the receiving end of such rhetoric before aren’t apt to.

We’re expect to receive, but not to dish anything back. We’re expected to overlook stereotypical representations of races and ethnicities, and not point them out.

The question is not whether Democrats have said these things, but rather whether they are justified.

I can go on for hours, too. What matters isn’t the negativity of the reports, but rather their substance, and by ignoring that, you add to, rather than subtract from bias. The balance shouldn’t be an artificial point set equidistant from either party, it should be where ever the position of the fulcrum of the facts allows it to be. That’s the system that keeps America adaptable and its leaders accountable.

DSP2195-
The bill you’re describing was unconstitutional. It tried to establish previable fetuses as legal persons, which would have gutted Roe v. Wade More to the point, Illinois law already provided for viable infants born alive as the result of a failed abortion.

It’s absurd to suggest that this equals support for the outright infanticide that Kermit Gosnell committed, but that’s not going to stop you, is it?

Not much does.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 17, 2013 10:26 PM
Comment #364405

Stephen, I know the report and you have given Obama’s excuse why he voted for infanticide; never the less, he still supported it and if you support him, you support Gosnell too.

“Rhinehold-
Do you really want me to come up with a list of the kind of atrocious comments that I see online? I could easily fill ten times that number! You don’t impress me.”

Stephen, all you have to do is read the comments by Adrienne; she is a fair representative of your side, checkmate.

By the way, what would today’s Obama gun bill have done to prevent the mass shootings of the past years? Answer the question!!! I am of the opinion one cannot talk to you about more than one subject, you get lost in prose and never answer the questions.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 10:39 PM
Comment #364406

And your point is…

“The vote was a huge blow to the president’s efforts since the Newtown, Conn., school massacre last December to enact a broad package of new gun laws. Mr. Obama and his team had considered background checks the most likely gun restriction to be approved by Congress, with polls showing as much as 90 percent of the public in favor of the measure immediately after the Newtown shootings.

The president put the blame squarely on the NRA, which he accused of spreading falsehoods that the legislation would lead to a national gun registry.

“They claimed that it would create some sort of big-brother gun registry, even though it did the opposite,” Mr. Obama said. “This pattern of spreading untruths … served a purpose. A minority in the U.S. Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms, even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery. It’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans just voted against that idea.”


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/17/obama-denounces-gun-rights-groups-willful-liars/#ixzz2QmS8QmTq
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 17, 2013 11:06 PM
Comment #364409

It’s official. John Kerry is a big p*ssy: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/04/steve-emerson-saudi-national-to-be-deported-on-national-security-grounds-next-week.html

Posted by: BZA at April 18, 2013 12:13 AM
Comment #364410

The GOP has staked it’s stability on satisfying people with drastically different tastes in policy than the general public, ensuring conflict with the priorities of the center, and the public at large.

This issue should have been something to clear the decks with, but instead, they’re going to stake themselves on an issue where less than ten percent of Americans agree with them.

That is the price of the Tea Party’s continued support of Republicans.

There is a pattern here! Look at all the votes in the last few years where there wasn’t an option to let it die. Where Republicans actually had to pass things, the votes have almost all required them to replace uncooperative Tea Party Republican votes with cooperative Democrats. Why? Because they cannot bear to do ANYTHING, even stuff that might be mostly conservative in its lean, like many of the proposals.

Even lately, we’ve seen votes where the de facto majority is mostly Democrats, because Republicans put themselves in a place where both outcomes were unthinkable. Taxes going up, and taxes going up for the Rich, for example, with the vote to renew the tax cuts.

Guys, if you don’t get the relief of the government going completely your way, what happens? Years more of this? Can we really stand it? More Debt Ceiling Crises, which never happened before, more incomplete budgets, because they couldn’t bear to compromise on key policies?

It gets to a point where this seems to be all about not admitting that the country has moved on somewhat, and voted in politicians accordingly. The Republicans are becoming like a has-been rock star who keeps on putting out mediocre albums because they can’t admit that people think they’re out of style.

This is not to say that they couldn’t change and get more with the times in their own way. But they’re not even bothering to do that. They’re trying to pretend that people didn’t mean it when they voted them out in 2006 or 2008, and they’re trying to convince themselves that they won on America’s positive feelings for Republicans and Conservatives, rather than on negative feelings they were able to drum up against the Democrats.

If you think otherwise, answer me this question: why can’t Republicans afford to tone down their rhetoric? Why do they end up having to buck public sentiment? Why can’t they denounce their wayward members, and get the “legitimate rape” crowd under control?

When you base your politics on opposition, not just on positive policy goals, or results, you put yourself in a position where there’s no option to back down, even if you wanted to. There’s no accepting any defeat, even if you deserve it.

The price of the Tea Party’s quick restoration of the
GOP has been rigidity. This is a party that can no longer agilely respond to public opinion. Instead, they lionize themselves for defying it, for being principled, even though nothing they do, in effect, actually creates positive policy. Trapped in a political position where they cannot let down their guard, where they cannot cooperate with the other side to their jobs, they starve themselves of real achievements, and starve America of the responsiveness they deserve from Congress.

Keep that up long enough folks, and it will cost you, more than having to recover and change gradually would.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 12:22 AM
Comment #364416

Stephen, you actually don’t get it, do you? By the lips of you and all other leftist liberals, the Tea Party was a passing fad. Your side and the MSM predicted the demise of the Tea Party, and yet after all these years, you are still blaming the Tea Party. Who was it….Pelosi, who ran her mouth and saying the Tea Party was not grass roots, as the OWS was, but they were “AstroTurf”?

You blame the failure of government to infringe of the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans, on the Tea Party. You are ignorant. There were Democrats and Republicans who voted against those 7 amendments yesterday. If anyone played a part in the votes yesterday, it was the NRA. This is not something new; when Al Gore lost WV in his run for president, Bill Clinton told him he lost it because of the NRA. You are a socialist and you believe the government has the right to disarm America, but there are millions who disagree with you. The left has tried their best to revise American history, but there is a history passed down from generation to generation and that is our forefathers won their freedom from tyranny by fighting against it with “GUNS”. Our forefathers knew this and they knew it would be “GUNS” that kept us free. Like Obama, your side says we just want to make people safe; but that’s an outright LIE. It’s the major cities (run and controlled by socialist liberals) that have the highest gun murder rate, and they have the strictest gun laws. If your side, and if Obama was concerned about the gun deaths of children, he would do something about these cities.

You are completely oblivious to the fact that criminals do not get guns through the same channels as law abiding citizens. Banning Assault style weapons is a joke, and it has been explained to you; ANY gun can be cosmetically change to look like an assault weapon. Stephen, there are BB guns that are made to look like an AR-15, but it’s still a BB gun. You try to play on the emotions of Americans, and they’re not buying it any more.

These Republicans that you want to accuse of being obstructionist are in reality heroes. They are the last line of defense against socialist tyranny. They are doing what their constituents want. Tell me Stephen, how would you feel if you’re Senator or Congressman continually voted for things you were against? Would you call him and voice your concerns, or would you just say thing? Would you continue to vote for a person that did not represent your beliefs? You are a silly, silly person Stephen. It’s for this reason your words don’t really carry much weight on WB, except for fellow socialist. Even C&J, who I would consider to be more moderate than conservative, has laughed at your ignorance. Its okay for Obama to stir up blacks and Hispanics and tell them to pressure their politicians to vote for his policies, but it’s not okay for the Tea Party or the NRA to tell their members to contact their politicians? This is your thing Stephen. Ignorant thinking…

You are outraged at the inability of Obama to pass gun control yesterday, and it was gun control. Reid even said “gun control” from the floor of the Senate. Perhaps a Freudian slip, but still he said it. Americans know the goal of the left is complete confiscation of guns, call I what you want.

You blather on and on, but when all the BS is peeled away, exactly what did the conservatives in America do wrong? What laws were broken yesterday?

And I will ask you again Stephen, for all the hype that dem Senators and Obama spouted over the passing of background checks; what would passing yesterday’s Bill done to prevent the mass shootings that have taken place over the years? Grassley presented the Amendment that would have dealt with real problems; i.e. mental health, prosecution of guns crimes and illegal purchases. And your side voted against it. That proves to me, your side has no interest in dealing with the problems.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 18, 2013 9:12 AM
Comment #364417

This says it all, of course it’s not in line with the fantasy world of the left:

“Only 4 percent of Americans think guns and gun control are an important problem facing the country, according to Gallup, and far more Americans are concerned about the economy, unemployment and the federal debt.

In its poll from Apr. 4-7, Gallup surveyed 1,005 adults by telephone and asked, “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?”

Respondents answered in the following order:

Economy in general 24%

Unemployment/Jobs 18%

Dissatisfaction with Government 16%

Federal budget deficit/Federal debt 11%

Healthcare 6%

Ethical/Moral/Family decline 5%

Immigration/Illegal aliens 4%

Education 4%

Guns/Gun control 4%

Situation with North Korea 4%

Lack of Money 3%

Welfare 2%

Lack of respect for each other 2%

Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness 2%

Foreign aid/Focus overseas 2%

Taxes 2%

Despite the Obama administration’s strong push for more gun control legislation, few Americans are concerned about the issue.

As Gallup reports, “Few Americans mention guns or immigration as the most important problems facing the nation today, despite the current attention lawmakers in Washington are giving to these issues.”


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-think-gun-control-important-problem

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 18, 2013 9:35 AM
Comment #364418

Stephen

No, you guys don’t talk about camps and panels, you guys like to talk about Christians and the evil 1%. How the 1% is making slaves and victims of all of us, and how a theocracy is somehow being forced upon you. lol.

“but the right has taken it to greatest intensity”

Only because you willingly refuse to hold the left to the same standards you use for the right. I have already given you countless examples of leftist rhetoric that is just as bad or even worse than what some on the right have said.
As far as your leaders being so holy, they just got done telling the world that pro 2nd Amendment people are lying extremists who don’t think children are worth protecting. Now, will they be shut up by their own party? Or do you think they will be excused and defended?

“As far as the soldiers go? As far as getting people?”

We all want those things, Stephen. But there is a huge difference between what we want and what we must do when in battle.
Our soldiers do observe the constraints that have been placed upon them, but in the few times they do not, we should not use those actions to define all soldiers for political gain.

“But I will do my absolute best to make sure that it comes to you in a way that furthers my aims, not yours.”

In battle, your only aim is to live and people should not use you to score political points against the CiC they hate.

“I want to be truly better than them.”

To be “truly better than them,” our enemy, you must be the last one standing, not them.

Look, we don’t have to politicize the actions of our own soldiers in order to be better than our enemy, and we sure as hell don’t need to kiss our enemies ass to get them to like us.

Don’t get me wrong Stephen, it would be great if all the feel-good things that sound good on paper worked in real life, but they don’t.

Posted by: kctim at April 18, 2013 10:43 AM
Comment #364419

“You are completely oblivious to the fact that criminals do not get guns through the same channels as law abiding citizens.”

Jeez, DSP2195, didn’t you read the survey, reported by Rhinehold, in which the majority of criminals actually obtained their guns through the same channels as law abiding citizens. Sure, a significant minority obtained guns through illegal channels. But, tightening up legal channels would seem reasonable considering that the majority of criminals acquire guns through such means.

Posted by: Rich at April 18, 2013 11:04 AM
Comment #364420

Stephen,

As a former infantry soldier during a war, let me give you a little insight into the mind of the typical American infantryman.

Assuming you are my enemy, I do’t want you to think that I am more “just” or more “humane” than you. I want you to KNOW that I am better than you because I am stronger, am better equipped, am a better shot, and downright meaner than you. I want to wear my colors proudly, so you know the unit I am with so you will know who is going to kill you. I want you so nervous when you see me that you shake in your boots and makes you afraid to shoot at me or makes you make mistakes so I can kill you more easily.

When we killed a VC soldier, we would often leave them on the side of the road, often with a card pinned to their chest of the ace of spades with our unit patch as the back of the card. The reason for this was to send a message to their friends that they weren’t safe from us and we would kill them also.

My job during combat was to kill my enemy and protect my brothers in arms. We had an entire unit who’s job was to placate the local people.

There were rumors of us wearing ears and trigger fingers as necklesses. I never saw any evidence of that, but helped spread the rumors, because that made my enemy more afraid of me. I didn’t want their respect as much as I wanted them afraid of me.

We had basic rules of engagement and we followed them, however, ANYTHING wp to breaking those rules were fair game and we used those rules to our best advantage.

One of our best techniques for obtaining information was to cover a prisoner’s head with a sandbag and take him up in a helicopter about 3 or 4 feet off the ground, ask him to talk and when he refused, we would hang him by his arms and threaten to drop him, bring him back into the chopper and ask him again. It usually worked. You probably consider that to be torture. I don’t.

It’s been said that “War is hell” I agree that it is and I hope we get to a point where it is not needed, but to insure the freedom we cherish as a nation, I don’t see that day comming in my lifetime. I only hope we continue to have warriers who are strong enough to preserve it.

Posted by: tdobson at April 18, 2013 11:47 AM
Comment #364421

kctim-
Incomes and wealth have gone up substantially for the few richest peole, while the rest have gone stagnant, and policies which we were told would benefit us, have instead made most Americans poorer, even in terms of the wealth they have in their homes.

And really, what did the Republicans do when they got into office? How many laws barring the use of Sharia law in government, despite the fact that the First Amendment would bar that anyways? How much anti-abortion legislation, something principly objected to by most opponents on religious grounds concerning what is a human life?

What is all this talk we get from people like Glenn Beck about how this nation was founded on Christian values, how we should bar homosexual rights, especially concerning marriage, because of the SANCTITY (That is, holiness, or at least preciousness) of heterosexual marriage?

If you do real research into what these people are saying, government by Christian principle, theocracy, is not only a goal, but a proud one at that.

Meanwhile, the Republicans talked about star chambers in which babies and grannies would be condemned to death. They talked about a government takeover of healthcare, despite the fact that the policy of the mandate is the explicit opposite of that, a policy devised by conservatives who would never entertain the thought of increasing socialized healthcare.

Meanwhile, people like me are accused of being traitors and defeatists for not holding a high opinion of the Iraq war, a war whose original purposes turned out to be false pretenses, and whose mismanagement cost the lives of thousand of American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

People like me are accused of being marxists, of wanting our economy to collapse under the burden of regulation, etc.

Folks on the right are even accusing us of being racists, based on conflation of deliberate disadvantaging of a race of people with compensating for the material advantages that years of whites not being economically suppressed have created.

There is a lot said about us, to be quite blunt, that comes nowhere near the truth, while much of our rhetoric, while sometimes a bit exaggerated and partisan, hits closer to the mark.

My principles on Haditha were not based on political gain. It’s a moral distinction on my part. I’m not comfortable with looking the other way on things like that. It strikes me as a well-intentioned allowance that nonetheless leads rather quickly to hell. What you do not punish, you encourage, and in an insurgency, the last thing you need to be encouraging is people to take out their frustrations, their anger, their revenge, on the very people you need to get quiet, and get compliant with your efforts. It’s both morally unacceptable, and strategically so.

As for political benefit? My contention would be that a lot of the rigid-minded consistency on policy was based on a defensive kind of politics, where Rove and folks like him wanted to present no chinks in the armor they had against the attacks of the Democrats. No problems would be admitted to, no failures acknowledged, lest people like me use that acknowledgement against them.

The consequence of that, though, was that they didn’t drop stupid policy fast enough, and that, actually, is what inspired me to become a blogger. Before, during the course of my life, Presidents seemed to learn from their mistakes. I didn’t originally feel that Bush would just continue to keep just a minimal troop presence in Country. I thought he’d realize that things were ****ing up. But one thing after another went wrong, one problem after another popped up, and he just never dealt with them.

Maybe some Democrats had the attitude that he was a bastard and we should hate him on principle, but he earned my contempt, my disrespect, by failing to do his job.

As for being the last one standing? Look, who do you think wins a battle of attrition between al-Qaeda and America? There is no doubt that if it came down to it, we could wipe those sons of bitches off the face of the planet.

But survival? There are different ways to survive. One way is to forsake all your principles, either by offering appeasement, which no Democrats I know really advocate, even on the great Orange Satan, and another is to go to the dark side, and become every bit the evil bastard your enemy is, so you can fight them on their level.

For some reason, the notion of our nation becoming as nasty as al-Qaeda doesn’t appeal to me.

You assume we have to fight them toe to toe, an eye for an eye, our nasty methods mirroring theirs.

In my experience, this is a mistake. Nations almost always come off looking as monstrous, if not more so, when they start to behave similar to their asymmetrical enemies. First, nations like ours are supposed to create order, solidify laws, behave rationally. We have citizens to think of. If we make ourselves into a police state, make ourselves more paranoid, more racist and sectarian in order to oppose their evil, who does it hurt more?

It hurts us more. We lose our standing, our freedoms, our dignity. We become objects of pity and disgust.

In military conflicts, winning isn’t merely about putting your opponent on the slab, it’s about defeating their purpose and upholding yours. The common purpose of many terrorist groups is not merely to inspire fear from their opponents, but to provoke them into doing things that destroy their reputation, that increase the likelihood of whatever wars and confrontations that they wanted. In Algeria, they succeeded in turning the world against the French colonial presence there. Same thing in Vietnam. Same thing in Iraq, with the insurgents doing it this time.

People get your attitude, feel that going to the darkside is a necessary evil. But our enemies use that against us, fulfill their objectives.

Why would I want to help them do that?

We don’t follow the rules because it’s easy, and doesn’t require sacrifice. We follow rules so that we can tell people that we are in the right, and they are in the wrong, a standard exists to test that. It also means they have less power to manipulate us, to force us to behave in ways that are unlike us.

That to me is a victory. What is also a victory? If we catch the bombers and put them on trial and convict them, we can show the world that we can stand up their barbaric behavior, their disregard for innocent lives and the rights of others, with a system that is their opposite, yet more than their equal.

I want our enemies to realize that America’s greatest strength is its commitment to freedom, liberty, and justice, not it’s tanks and its jet fighter, not its tomahawks and predators. Our character should trump theirs, not just force of arms. I don’t need our enemies to love us, I want them to respect us and fear us because we can defeat them without defeating ourselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 12:31 PM
Comment #364422

Stephen,

With your attitude, you would be dead within a month in combat. I sincerely hope you never have to fight for yor country. You would endanger everyone around you.

Posted by: tdobson at April 18, 2013 12:45 PM
Comment #364423

tdobson-
I know this is a harsh question, but did we win Vietnam? No.

As for the guy with a bag over their head? The fundamental problem with torture is this: it’s primarily about domination, and truth is secondary to that, in a neurological and psychological sense.

Sure, folks will talk when you do that to them. But if you’re wrong about them, and they’re innocent, it’s almost biological: they’ll talk to get you to stop. Press them hard enough, they may even get to believe the lies they’re telling you.

I don’t dispute that you want your opponent to fear you, to know you’re tough. You’re not playing tiddlywinks. The trouble is, ruthlessness always has its price. It’s psychologically damaging to the soldiers, especially ones who came in idealistic about our moral superiority to our enemies. There’s a morale loss, in other words, from finding out that you aren’t necessarily better than them, and more from the psychological turmoil and remorse that comes from inflicting torture on people.

Most of us are not sociopaths, not capable of simply divorcing ourselves from the remorse that comes from these actions. War is hard enough on people, but now you add even more barbaric behavior? It’s not good for people. The rules help people keep sane, help them rise above that darkness.

Folks assume that I’m approaching this from a sense of idealism, but in truth, I’m approaching it from a sense that no, folks are not inherently good. No, people under pressure do not necessarily benefit from just being given wide latitude. We need rules sometimes to keep command of ourselves, especially when things are tough.

I don’t expect folks in a war zone to keep pristine rules, for it to be easy at all. But here’s what I think: if the system is permissive, and we have soldiers in there with moral doubts about what’s being done, that soldier may end up being an island of doubt in a sea of certainty, and the others may end up influencing them to do wrong. But if the system in general supports a more disciplined and principled approach, if a soldier faced with a dilemma has the support of those who command him and most of the soldiers around him or her to say no, then they won’t feel as if they’re betraying their fellow soldiers for trying to do the right thing.

Who knows. I might be completely naive about this. But my sense is that every time we’ve tried to get dirty to win, we’ve lost anyways, in no small part because our enemies could always get way with being dirtier fighters no matter how much we lowered ourselves. These races to the bottom can’t be won by nations that have to operate within Democratic norms. American cannot be both a free country and a ruthless conqueror of other nations.

If you can’t win by being ruthless, you have to win by being smart, by coming in with greater moral authority, greater support from the rest of the world. It’s not niceness, sweetness and light, it’s a hardnosed placement of our enemies at a disadvantage.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 12:56 PM
Comment #364424

Good article:
Heartless Right Wing Response to Gun Victims Demonstrates Emptiness of Their Arguments

Politics is not a game, and if we can’t use politics to solve real world problems, then there’s actually no point to it at all.

Obviously, those who believe that gun manufacturer profits shouldn’t be slowed or impeded even slightly by concerns like preventing mass murder are only resorting to this line of argument because they can’t actually defend their preferred policies. It’s worth noting that this is a common theme in right wing rhetoric, addressed yesterday with regards to the abortion issue. They can’t defend their preferred policies, so they throw up a bunch of lies, bullshit, and distractions in hopes they won’t have to. The gun industry won this round, but the price they’ve paid to get here is massive exposure of how terrible and full of shit they and their lobbyists are.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2013 1:29 PM
Comment #364425

Stephen, VietNam was lost because politics and politicians stuck their noses in it to much. Nothing was left to the Generals to decide it was up to the politicians. If the politicians keept their noses out of the fighting and let the military do their job it would have been won.

Posted by: KAP at April 18, 2013 1:31 PM
Comment #364426

“If you can’t win by being ruthless, you have to win by being smart, by coming in with greater moral authority, greater support from the rest of the world.”

We tried that in VietNam That’s why we lost.

And yes you ARE naive.

“Sure, folks will talk when you do that to them. But if you’re wrong about them, and they’re innocent, it’s almost biological: they’ll talk to get you to stop. Press them hard enough, they may even get to believe the lies they’re telling you.”

Not much chance of them being innocent when you take a weapon frm their hands. If you press them hard enough and they think they will die if the lie to you, they usually tell the truth. BTW I don’t think it is torture to scare your enemy to gain information.

Posted by: tdobson at April 18, 2013 1:49 PM
Comment #364427

Another Heartless Right Wing Response to Gun Victims Demonstrating The Emptiness of Their Arguments:

quote text”>Conservative radio host: Families of Newtown shooting victims can ‘go to hell’

“I have something I want to say to the victims of Newtown, or any other shooting,” Davis said. “I don’t care if it’s here in Minneapolis or anyplace else. Just because a bad thing happened to you doesn’t mean that you get to put a king in charge of my life. I’m sorry that you suffered a tragedy, but you know what? Deal with it, and don’t force me to lose my liberty, which is a greater tragedy than your loss. I’m sick and tired of seeing these victims trotted out, given rides on Air Force One, hauled into the Senate well, and everyone is just afraid — they’re terrified of these victims.”

“I would stand in front of them and tell them, ‘go to hell,’” he added.

These gun-nuts clearly have no idea how f*cking sick in the head, how callous and morally bankrupt average, sensible people think they are.
In fact, these gun-nuts who actually believe that their ability to own as many bang-bang toys as they want somehow trumps another persons right to live and not get shot by crazies and criminals (just so they can continue to live in their role-playing fantasy world where they need to stockpile weapons so that one magic day they can overthrow the government), are clearly too selfish and sociopathic to own guns responsibly.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2013 1:50 PM
Comment #364428

Link didn’t work. Here it is again:
Conservative radio host: Families of Newtown shooting victims can ‘go to hell’

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2013 1:53 PM
Comment #364429

What’s heartless is you Adrienne and people like you who take victims of a tragedy and use them for political gain. IMO you and people like you who use these tragedies to push an agenda can GO TO HELL. I feel sorry for the victims but to use them for political gain is worse than the tragedy.

Posted by: KAP at April 18, 2013 1:59 PM
Comment #364430

KAP, to quote again from my first link:

I was done with conservatives screaming “politicizing” every time someone tries to enact policies to stop social problems that wingnuts would prefer continue. This accusation of “bullying” is part of the constellation of that argument. The thought process goes like this: Politics isn’t about real world problems, but is just sports for nerdy people. Thus, when real world problems occur, it’s off-limits for politicians to try to pass policies to stop those problems. In fact, it’s “bullying” for them to describe the problems as problems at all, even if your actual body—in this case, Gabby Giffords’ obvious brain damage from being shot in the head—is living proof that this is actually a problem. This is only true if conservatives prefer the problem to continue. The last clause is critical, because it’s not “playing politics” or “politicizing” for conservative to politicians to pass their preferred policies through political systems. Only liberals. Or in this case, only 90% of Americans of both political parties who have the crazy notion that it should be somewhat harder for criminals to get ahold of guns.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2013 2:09 PM
Comment #364431

Adrienne, I am a Republican and I can assure you that what you are posting does not reflect what I believe. Saying that the Newtown victims can “go to hell” is an absolute outrage as I am a father and can’t imagine the pain they must feel. Also, please keep in mind that MANY republican voters across this country have no problem with expanded background checks. The debate as to their effectiveness is an extension to that discussion as well but end of day I am certainly not threatened by the prospect of a background check.

Posted by: BZA at April 18, 2013 2:13 PM
Comment #364432

“Jeez, DSP2195, didn’t you read the survey, reported by Rhinehold, in which the majority of criminals actually obtained their guns through the same channels as law abiding citizens. Sure, a significant minority obtained guns through illegal channels. But, tightening up legal channels would seem reasonable considering that the majority of criminals acquire guns through such means.”

Posted by: Rich at April 18, 2013 11:04 AM

Thank you Rich, but I did see Rhinehold’s information. Since the Democrats touted that their background check did not include family, then I guess we can discount the 39.5%; and since 11.4% got theirs from licensed dealers and since someone brought out the fact that 1st time criminals can legally get a gun from a dealer, and since there were only about 62 cases prosecuted by Holder out of 46k plus who tried to buy a gun illegally, then I guess we can dismiss that one. Only 1.7% from gun shows; and since I have been to many gun shows, I can say that most guns are bought from dealers, who do a background check. So the same rules would apply as the 11.4%. That leaves 37.5% plus 9.9%, equaling 47.4% who would not even be affected by the Manchin/Toomey Amendment because they were illegal. So what good was the Bill?

“Friends or family members: 39.5%
Street or black market suppliers: 37.5%
Licensed gun dealers: 11.4%
Theft: 9.9%
Gun shows or flea markets: 1.7%”

tdobson, you are wasting your time trying to explain something to Stephen Daugherty. He is an expert on all things; it doesn’t matter that he has never been in the military, and it doesn’t matter that you are a combat veteran. Stephen knows what he knows and you or no one else can tell him different.

“kctim-
Incomes and wealth have gone up substantially for the few richest peole, while the rest have gone stagnant, and policies which we were told would benefit us, have instead made most Americans poorer, even in terms of the wealth they have in their homes.”

Stephen, the middle-class is dropping and losing income; you want to guess whose fault that is? Can we say….Obama’s economy?

Stephen, we might have won the war in Vietnam, had LBJ and the dems in DC not been playing toy soldiers on a table top in one of their strategy rooms.

Come on Stephen; tell us how the Manchin/Toomey Amendment would have changed the outcome of Sandy Hook or any other mass shooting??? Take a shot at it…

Obama was clearly upset at the outcome of his gun grab bill yesterday and I thought it was because King Obama wanted it and it just didn’t happen. I heard the reason he was so upset was because he thought it would pass the Senate and of course we all know it would fail in the House. His goal was to use the House outcome (Republican shutdown) as a campaign point in 2014. But now he can’t; it was a bi-partisan loss in the Senate. The Dem Senators did not support him.

The American people have figured out what Obama and the liberal democrats are about when it comes to gun control; now all they have to do is figure out that democrats feel the same way about all civil rights.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 18, 2013 2:15 PM
Comment #364434

Lies, bullshit, and distractions:
Federal Gun Registry Is The New Death Panels

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2013 2:29 PM
Comment #364435

I have repeatedly asked Stephen to explain what impact the Manchin/Toomey Amendment would have had on any of the mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, and he has refused to answer. I will ask Adrienne the same thing; what would the background check done that would have prevented the Sandy Hook or any other mass shooting?

Obama marched out the Sandy Hook parents and every one of his campaign stops and said “it’s about the victims”; but now we have one liberal media report after another reporting about Obama’s failure to get gun control. I’m beginning to think it’s not about the victims, it’s really about Obama.

BZA, the has one point correct; if they had not declared the school a gun free zone, perhaps the shooting wouldn’t have happened. Do you know that every mass shooting has taken place in a “Gun Free” zone. States like New York, Illinois, and DC have the strictest gun laws in the country and yet are the most dangerous. They refuse to enforce current laws and constantly cry for more laws. Again, Holder prosecuted about 62 cases out of 46,000 plus attempts to illegally buy guns. When you fill out the paper work to buy a gun, it states under penalty of fines and imprisonment if you falsify the information. So everyone of the 46,000 plus falsified forms should have been prosecuted, but they weren’t.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 18, 2013 2:34 PM
Comment #364436

Adrienne, you really are an evil person, aren’t you?

You need to expand your base of knowledge and get away from the radical left blog sites.

You are emblematic of most people on the left. And Stephen Daugherty agrees with you completely…interesting…

The Manchin/Toomey Amendment failed to pass by 6 votes. There were 3 Republicans who voted FOR the Bill, and there were 5 Democrats who voted against the Bill. I might add, Reid was one who voted against the Bill. It was a bi-partisan loss.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 18, 2013 2:51 PM
Comment #364437

Would it be fair to say that the far left threatened and intimidated the 3 Republicans who voted for the Manchin/Toomey Amendment?

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 18, 2013 2:53 PM
Comment #364438

Adrienne, repeatidly conservatives have said enforce the laws already on the books not make more laws that will never be enforced either. If as DSP stated 46,000 plus attempts to buy guns illegally should have been prosecuted but only 62 have been. That is where the injustice lies. NO LAWS will prevent a person who wants a gun to get one if he/she so chooses. Sandy Hook could never have been prevented by more laws nor any other mass shooting in the past. If a person or persons, and I refer to Boston’s bombings, want to kill or cause mayhem they will find a way, and NO LAWS will prevent it. So go ahead and spew all the BS you want, link all the left wing BS you wnat, but nothing you, me, or any politician will do to prevent a person who wants to cause death or injury.

Posted by: KAP at April 18, 2013 2:56 PM
Comment #364439

DSP2195-
The Tea Party is astroturf. Freedomworks, for example, is a longtime thinktank of the right, run by former majority leader Dick Armey. (At least until recently) Gov. Rick Scott actually ran one of those groups, and before that, he ran HealthSouth, getting kicked out by the shareholders after his business was convicted of massive Medicare fraud. (you know how to pick them!)

The definition of Astroturf, in political terms, is a group that is claimed to be grassroots, but is backed financially and/or lead by non-grassroots people and organizations.

So, the charge has merits.

The Tea Party has failed to completely take back Congress but it has succeeded in undermining the courage of any Republicans to stand up to the fringe. The rest of the party doesn’t have the strength or the heart to stand up to them, and the leaders appease them so they don’t lose thier primaries.

You are a socialist and you believe the government has the right to disarm America, but there are millions who disagree with you.

I have a response to that, which I will not use, though it makes me laugh to think of it.

Really, I keep on saying things to you about this subject, and you keep on filling in this horse****. It’s indicative of your low debating skills. You need an extreme strawman to justify your extreme policy position. You need somebody who wants to take all guns, so you can justify a complete lack of gun control. If you actually had to get into the weeds of a moderate argument, you’d **** it up. You don’t know any better, you just say what the dumbasses feed you.

America wasn’t freed by guns. Go around the world, look at all the dictators overthrown by guns who are just replaced in turn by other people with guns. Guns represent force, and any government founded on that force alone cannot endure.

Guns don’t keep us free. Every family in Iraq had a gun, for defense of the country.

Rights, Rule of law, constitutional government are what keep us free.

If you would deign to acknowledge it, I’ve actually said that I’ve got no interest at all in taking all guns away, much less having my nation ruled by tyrannical force as a result. That’s just paranoid bull****, meant to justify an extremist position.

My position is this: there’s a certain point at which having more firearms and more firepower in each gun doesn’t make us any safer, and in fact puts us in greater danger. America does not need combat-style weaponry, and if the changes that gun control laws seek are merely cosmetic, then I want them changed to deal with models that are truly overpowered.

These Republicans that you want to accuse of being obstructionist are in reality heroes.

And I bett they’re strong, and fast, and fresh from the fight, right? (apologies to Bonnie Tyler)

As with guns, you’ve got to define your sense of who is right and wrong by extremes, so your strawman for us are the folks who take left-wing policy to its ultimate, unworkable maximum.

That way, you can excuse, as with guns, your extremity in the other direction. Fact is, your brand of capitalism has proven unworkable. It’s too naive, and every time you guys crow that it’s brought the economy to new heights, another bust in the boom and bust cycle happens, another big financial scandal occurs, and Americans find another reason not to buy into your BS.

Tell me Stephen, how would you feel if you’re Senator or Congressman continually voted for things you were against?

I live in Texas, so the answer is, gee whiz, hunky-dory sir! I’ve got Ted Poe, that Cruz guy, and John Cornyn as my Congresscritters.

Seriously, though, you’re indulging this fantasy that you can always get what you want, but the numbers simply aren’t on your side. They can vote the way they want to vote all they want, but in the end, they’re not really passing much, so it’s all in vain. They’re just as blocked as the people they’re blocking!

They’re writing checks for your loyalty that get returned to you marked insufficient votes. But for some odd reason, you’re grateful for their more or less ineffectual political purity. In the meantime, yes, they keep the liberal policies you hate from being passed, but with America in the state it’s in, that’s not actually diminishing people’s desire for more government involvement.

Which is the thing I think you should consider. By holding things back, you’re both ensuring that problem remain grave, or become graver, and that people remain dissatisfied, and your only saving grace for the last few years, is that many people don’t realize that you’re the reason people haven’t seen the kind of change they want.

In the real world, in the constitutional government that the framers set up, the point of the arrangement we have at hand was to force all the factions to work together. I know you folks like to say, “This is not a Democracy, it’s a Republic”, but you seem to forget the implications of that, and expect what the framers did not, actually intend: that the Representatives and Senators would be direct proxies for the electorate.

That’s the real silly part here. Adults would recognize that compromise, especially when you hold only one of the tree necessary points of control for making laws, will be necessary. But instead, you’ve raged against the system, using the the filibuster and the threat of default and government shut down to force concessions.

Well, let me be blunt: very few people are happy with the state of things, and at this point, your major priority rates pretty low. It might not rate much higher if things keep up as they are, or if something really bad happens because you had to get your magic wishlist item.

So what did Republicans do wrong yesterday?

I think the simplest way to put it is that you’ve put yourself at the extreme of an issue, beyond public support, with no dignified way out. Maybe you enjoy pressure, but the GOP these days seems to back itself foolishly into corners, and then complain when people like me and Obama don’t let them get back out without concessions.

Fact of the matter is, our government wasn’t designed to operate according to the purism of folks like you, or folks like me for that matter. it was designed to make sure what was then a rather contentious bunch of former colonies could stick together and function as a nation.

Function. It’s been a long time since you folks concerned yourself with that. I mean, it’s a neat little racket, sabotaging things, then saying, ooh, look, big government doesn’t work! I would say that I wish I could screw things up and improve my political chances, but I don’t actually want tot hink that way.

As for Background checks? Let me put it this way: in the old days, a filibuster threat was prelude to a deal being made. Then the legislation would go through. But with negotiation not an option, well, what right do you have to get their votes?

If your people were less interested in just stonewalling Obama, and more interested in solving problems, your Congresses wouldn’t be some of the least active in American history.

Finally, about priority numbers?

Did you bother to look at where your priorities lay? The Budget is a lower priority than unemployment, jobs, and the economy. Ethical/moral family decline isn’t much better. Neither is taxes, neither is Immigration.

Of course, these are numbers purely about what people think should be put first, not necessarily reflect of what they support or down’t support. The question is “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today”, and even the top answer, the Economy in general, only scores 24%

They way you’re presenting it, less than quarter of people actually care about the economy!

When, in truth, the answer really says that a little under a quarter believe its the top priority. It’s not that only a quarter of Americans are concerned about the economy.

You borrow too many of your arguments from hotshots that don’t bother to argue logically. It’s just for the benefit of hotheads like you, who then and go befuddle everybody else with your BS.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 2:58 PM
Comment #364440

BTW I don’t think it is torture to scare your enemy to gain information.
Posted by: tdobson at April 18, 2013 1:49 PM

Thank you for your service.

I wonder if Daugherty and others think plea bargaining is also torture? It certainly is a scare tactic. The District Attorney tells the accused they they may get a lessor sentence or amnesty if they cooperate. The murderer facing execution confesses for a life sentence.

Wars are won with resolve and lost with confusion over purpose. Wars conducted with decisions based upon fleeting public opinion, or home political advantage, will always fail as we have seen.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 18, 2013 3:07 PM
Comment #364441

DSP2195-
The underlying idea in your question is that if something real bad happens, we should only address the individual problems that connect directly to the incident that provoked action?

Perhaps it would stop a future crime like Sandy Hill. Or maybe it just saves a few people here or there. What is this an argument for? getting rid of weapons specifically like the one that killed those children? Would your side even allow that? Requiring background checks for ammunition, especialy the hollow points that reportedly DISMEMBERED these children?

Oh, no, you don’t want that, except for the sake of argument. Democrats were prepared to settle for strengthened background checks, just to make sure something got done.

For now, you get your wish, no more gun control, no greater background checks. But after three different high profile gun incidents, what happens when the fourth comes now?

That’s the problem with you. In your arrogance, you utterly fail to consider that maybe you haven’t won, just deferred the reckoning.

And in the process of all this obstruction, have Democrats become less interested in getting what they want?

No. They haven’t. They’re just less interested in making concessions.

Republicans can only win as long as they can stonewall. Then, they lose, and often spectacularly. The recent Tax cut debate is one example. The Debt Ceiling debacle is another. Unable to accept, as a body, any proposals that fall short of their ideals, they have refused one favorable deal after another, in favor of purist proposals they can’t get passed.

Put another way, the actual outcomes are far less conservative than they could be, if they were willing to compromise. And because they insist on pushing grand bargain style things, everything’s got the subtlety of a flaming brick, and aobut the grace, in policy terms.

The record will reflect far less pleasing results than the the PR. You don’t have conservatism triumphing over liberalism, on account of your heroes, you just have feckless leaders milking the zealotry of their constituents for a few more years of power and influence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 3:25 PM
Comment #364442

Daugherty writes; “You need somebody who wants to take all guns, so you can justify a complete lack of gun control.”

Another scarlet “H” for Doughboy’s T-Shirt. The Hypocrisy in his sentence is stunning. Would anyone…anyone; agree that we have “a complete lack of gun control.”

I would never disparage the families and survivors of gun violence and renounce any who would. It would have been interesting if obama would have had a few Americans in the Rose Garden with him who are here and alive today because they could protect themselves and their families with a gun.

We never hear liberals express thankfulness for the presence of a gun when it saves lives. Why is that?

If a person and/or family is in a life threatening situation with an armed perpetrator and the police are able to intervene in time and kill the perp with a gun we hail that as heroic. Why is it not the same when a non-police person does the same?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 18, 2013 3:27 PM
Comment #364443

I think it is telling when the left starts distancing themselves from the ACLU so much in order to score political points…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172118563

The American Civil Liberties Union said a gun bill proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on March 22 mandating background checks could infringe on Americans’ civil liberties and privacy rights.

S 649 would mandate a universal background check for all gun sales, but the records maintained in background checks for private sales could be retained, which the ACLU says would be a violation of privacy rights.

The first concern is the bill treats records for unlicensed gun sales differently than purchases made through unlicensed sellers.

The second concern is this could be the first step toward making a national gun registry, which the ACLU would oppose for privacy reasons.

I guess according to Adrienne the ACLU are now front men for the NRA and far right… Between this and their arguing for Citizens United, I’m surprised the far left hasn’t labelled them a hate group.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 3:34 PM
Comment #364444

BTW, Obama’s speech last night was, IMO, his ‘finger-wagging’ moment.

Of course they have a right to speak their minds. But no, their emotions are not relevant when it comes to empirical questions such as the impact of background checks, “assault weapon” bans, and limits on magazines. Their pain tells us nothing about the effectiveness or constitutionality of such measures. To the contrary, it obscures those issues with an impenetrable emotional fog.

Obama does a fine job of empathizing with the parents of Adam Lanza’s victims. But that is something any decent human being should be able to manage. Where he has trouble, despite his lip service to the idea of putting himself in the other guy’s shoes, is in empathizing with his opponents. He not only says they are wrong, which is to be expected. He refuses to concede that people who disagree with him about gun control are acting in good faith, based on what they believe to be sound reasons—that they, like him, are doing what they think is right. His self-righteous solipsism is striking even for a politician.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 3:39 PM
Comment #364445

Great news and a congrats to Sec Def Chuck Hagel.

From The American Legion:

“Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced today that the proposed military decoration that honors drone pilots and cyberwarriors — the Distinguished Warfare Medal — has been cancelled and will be replaced by a distinguishing device that can be affixed to previously awarded medals.

American Legion National Commander James E. Koutz protested the Distinguished Warfare Medal’s proposed ranking, which placed it higher than the Purple Heart and Bronze Star with Combat “V.” Last month, Koutz said that placing the medal above those given for valor and courage under fire was “wholly inappropriate.”

Hagel halted production of the medal on April 5, and directed Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey to conduct a review of its ranking.”

“Cyber and drone warfare have become part of the equation for 21st-century combat, and those who fight such battles with distinction certainly deserve to be recognized. But The American Legion still believes there’s a fundamental difference between those who fight remotely, or via computer, and those fighting against an enemy who is trying to kill them.”

As a member of the American Legion I salute our efforts, combined with others, in the successful cancellation of this award.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 18, 2013 3:41 PM
Comment #364446

And of course, the left NEVER says anything disgusting ever…

http://news.yahoo.com/msnbc-host-blames-nra-slow-boston-investigation-business-154039031.html

There are new developments tonight in the bombing investigation here in Boston,” O’Donnell said. “But that investigation could be moving faster were it not for the successful lobbying efforts of the National Rifle Association.”

“The NRA’s efforts to guarantee that American mass murderers are the best-equipped mass murders in the world is not limited to murderers who use assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” he added.

Yes, NRA members, whether you know it or not, you help fund an organization that’s in the business of equipping mass murderers.

“The NRA is also in the business of helping bombers get away with their crimes.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 3:42 PM
Comment #364447

The best part here is how Stephen is trying to tell us that the left policies it’s crazy side, but the right doesn’t. This is followed up by Adrienne posting all kinds of left wing kook links and calling everyone who doesn’t agree with her lonnies an crazies. Stephen, ignores it of course, because that’s the way these things work.

The middle of the left and the middle of the right NEED these crazy people out there spouting all kinds of drivel in order to push their agenda. Their SS as it were. Do the dirty work that they want to appear apart from. But as for actually pointing out when they are wrong? Never happens.

Stephen likes to tell us how DailyKOS is pushing these people off the site, but as I pointed out yesterday you can do a search for all posts tagged with ‘republican racists’ or ‘republicans are evil’ and you will get THOUSANDS of returns.

I just find reading through the comments on this article particularly poignant in that respect, the way Stephen’s main point of all of his posts and comments dashed away by Adrienne’s shrill insanity.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 3:47 PM
Comment #364448

A perfect analogy…

Adrienne thinks its wrong to question President Obama for using the victims of Newton to pass amendments that could lead to a national gun registry. Yet, if/when the Republican right were to use victims of abortion (millions of dead babies!) to try to pull at the heartstrings of voters in order to outlaw, or further encroach upon privacy rights of women, she screams ‘war on women’ and ‘how dare you!’

In one case she is right, the other she is wrong. You can’t be right in both cases… Not and be a sane logical person.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 3:51 PM
Comment #364449

tdobson-
We didn’t get international support, anymmore than we got it for Iraq. We tried a strategy of attrition on somebody else’s home turf, usually a bad idea, especially during an insurgency. We supported corrupt leaders, and failed to register the cost of that on our efforts. We fought their wars for them, rather than truly teaching them to fight for themselves.

And moral authority? Whatever we started out with, we wasted. We thought fighting a dirtier war, a more aggressive, expedient strategy would win it.

It didn’t. Our enemies could afford to be more ruthless, especially since they saw it as a defense of their home territory. They didn’t need, nor observe our rules of war, and our failure to do so did not do wonders either for public support there, or public support here.

One last question: if you can get an innocent person to reveal false information, what stops a Vietnamese soldier from giving you bad information for the same reason?

There are many things I’m naive about, I suppose, but neuroscience isn’t one of them.

1) Trauma inhibits recall. Being captured, under stress has been found to be sufficient to get people to sing at their best. Pain and suffering after that point renders people less able to properly recall important details.

2) Suggestible states are problematic for interrogations. Hypnosis, truth serum administration, use of cult-like re-education practices, and interviews of impressionable children all have demonstrated serious problems in reliability, in no small part because the subject doesn’t have the willpower to resist the interviewer when they go off tangent to the actual memories. Confabulation and confusion result. This is where you get all these recovered memories, with people remembering alien abductions, satanic child abuse, and other imaginary horrors.

3) People still can and do lie, and the certainty that comes with having extracted that confession can blind the interrogator to false results, whether they come from a bad guy who’s endured well enough to lie, or a regular person who just doesn’t want to get hurt anymore

4) Their testimony is inadmissable for all those reason in most courts in most countries, meaning that options for bringing the enemy to justices are limited. Torture only increases credibility for those doing the torturing, for everybody else, it brings doubt into the picture, since its perfectly possible to torment a person into saying whatever you want.

So on and so forth.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 3:54 PM
Comment #364450

“My position is this: there’s a certain point at which having more firearms and more firepower in each gun doesn’t make us any safer, and in fact puts us in greater danger. America does not need combat-style weaponry, and if the changes that gun control laws seek are merely cosmetic, then I want them changed to deal with models that are truly overpowered.”

And pray tell Stephen, what gives you the right to determine at what point firearms are enough. The founders of this country gave us the 2nd Amendment, granting the right to own firearms, which just so happened to be the same firearms that the military carried. Are you saying the founders meant for the military to get more modern firearms, but the American citizens should stay with muskets? Who gave you the right to say what kind of weapons we should have, combat or not? You are nothing but a mouthpiece for the socialist. You try to say you are not supporting the confiscation of guns from Americans; but your comments tell a different story. You say you don’t think we should own certain kinds of weapons based on your opinion; what happens when the next Democrat says he don’t think American should own handguns…who will you support then. Your opinions are a slippery slope leading to complete gun ban and many of your liberal politicians have already said they believed in a confiscation of guns. They are part of your party and you say you disagree with them…I don’t think so, Stephen, you have never disagreed with any leftist position.

“I live in Texas, so the answer is, gee whiz, hunky-dory sir! I’ve got Ted Poe, that Cruz guy, and John Cornyn as my Congresscritters.”

And Stephen, I expect you contact them as most Americans do, and when they vote against your desires…you vote for them anyway. Yea sure you do. I imagine you threaten to vote against them.

“In the real world, in the constitutional government that the framers set up, the point of the arrangement we have at hand was to force all the factions to work together. I know you folks like to say, “This is not a Democracy, it’s a Republic”, but you seem to forget the implications of that, and expect what the framers did not, actually intend: that the Representatives and Senators would be direct proxies for the electorate.”

Herein lies the problem; neither Obama nor any of the liberals in Congress have ever been shown that they can be trusted. Case in point: the IRS intruding on American citizen’s texts, emails, and social networks. Another case in point: the feds gathering CCW permit holders information from the state of MO. They lie Stephen. “Proxies for the electorate”…so you don’t have a problem with your reps voting against your wishes. You think politicians should vote without regard to their constituents. In other words, they are no longer representatives, they are mini-dictators.

“But instead, you’ve raged against the system, using the the filibuster and the threat of default and government shut down to force concessions.”

So Stephen, did you have a problem with the Democrats filibustering Amendments #719, 720, and 725 yesterday. These were amendments presented by the republicans and were filibustered. Or are you only outraged at the lack of “compromise” when it’s republicans who filibuster?

And once again Stephen drones on:

“DSP2195-
The underlying idea in your question is that if something real bad happens, we should only address the individual problems that connect directly to the incident that provoked action?
Perhaps it would stop a future crime like Sandy Hill. Or maybe it just saves a few people here or there. What is this an argument for? getting rid of weapons specifically like the one that killed those children? Would your side even allow that? Requiring background checks for ammunition, especialy the hollow points that reportedly DISMEMBERED these children?”

In other words, Stephen is admitting the recently defunct gun grab law would have done absolutely nothing to prevent Sandy Hook or any other gun massacre. Stephen fails to understand that the Assault Weapons ban was not part of the Manchin/Toomey Amendment. However the assault gun ban was rejected by Reid as not being able to pass the Senate by Dems or Repbs. I guess you forgot that part Stephen. If memory serves correct, we had an Assault gun and high capacity ban before and it did NOTHING.

As usual, Stephen is full of BS.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 18, 2013 3:56 PM
Comment #364451

Another theory is that this is all a setup for the next shooting tragedy. They knew this bill wasn’t going to make it out of the House but if they made a big enough show then the next time they could say told you so.

Again it’s a case for me of the President not leading but instead just playing politics.

Posted by: George in SC at April 18, 2013 4:01 PM
Comment #364452

Before I head out to play golf, I just had to comment on Stephen’s latest admission of his lack of intelligence:

“There are many things I’m naive about, I suppose, but neuroscience isn’t one of them.”


What he is really saying is, “There are many things I’m naïve about, I suppose, but religion…economics…politics…the bible…combat…being black…being a woman…abortion and its consequences on women…firearms…blah, blah, blah…isn’t one of them.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 18, 2013 4:05 PM
Comment #364453

“tdobson, you are wasting your time trying to explain something to Stephen Daugherty. He is an expert on all things; it doesn’t matter that he has never been in the military, and it doesn’t matter that you are a combat veteran. Stephen knows what he knows and you or no one else can tell him different.”

I know, but it’s so much fun watching him look like a fool.

Posted by: tdobson at April 18, 2013 4:10 PM
Comment #364454

Rhinehold-
By all accounts, the Newtown families sought Obama out. If so, it’s patronizing to characterize them as props.

As for tugging at the heartstrings?

Sometimes, policy needs to be expedient, but there is also a price to be paid, for it being too sociopathic. Our Republic is supposed to be responsive to our needs, and there is practical value in preventing, or making less likely the kind of tragedies that shock and offend our sensibilities.

Here’s a for-instance: because that fertilizer plant was so close to those homes and businesses, people were in harms way when it blew. There’s nothing new about fertilizer blowing up, We had a major incident in Texas City back in the forties that was pretty deadly, and Ammonium Nitrate is a common component of both legitimate and criminal explosive devices.

What would you do, on that account?

If we disregard people’s lives, for all that emotional content, we’re not exactly enacting wise policy.

Norms of decency, the public good, are not merely naive sentiments.

On the subject of Daily Kos, it’s worth noting that you can get thousands of articles about Republican racism, but at the same time, you’ve got tens of thousands of members active at any given time, so it’s not surprising, nor proportionately all that large. I’m sure you could find some extreme examples, but for every such one, I think I could find one linking to those images and statement that people found legitimately offensive.

As for Adrienne? She’s responding to your negativism, and that of people like DSP2195. Unlike me, she sees no reason to contain the anger and frustration she gets from reading personally insulting posts.

You may think you’re easing the situation by calling her out, but calling her insane, accusing her of hypocrisy is probably only making her angrier.

She doesn’t invalidate my posting. Not unless DSP invalidates everything you’ve written. We’re all responsible for our own responses, in the end.

Royal Flush-
I think they would consider being called props or dupes pretty disparaging. Far be it from me to suggest that if you’ve just lost the youngest, most innocent family members in a horrific mass slaughter, that you might find gun control a cause worth fighting for.

Republicans seem to be suggesting in many cases that a person cannot come to believe the things they do unless they are the dupe or the prop of the politician besides them. The idea that we might have minds of our own doesn’t occur.

We never hear liberals express thankfulness for the presence of a gun when it saves lives. Why is that?

1) If Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, Liberals would be logically better advised to give the credit to the person who saved those people, rather than to the weapon itself, which by your logic only plays a marginal role.

2) If we are supposed to be vocally grateful when a gun saves our lives, does that not justify being vocally outraged when one is used in a murder, a robbery, or some other crime? Does it not mean that a parent of a suicide would be justified in vocally speaking out against the guns?

3) The confrontations are rare, per capita. Liberals would only be a subset of that. And do most people make political points of their experiences?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 4:23 PM
Comment #364455

“If we are supposed to be vocally grateful when a gun saves our lives, does that not justify being vocally outraged when one is used in a murder, a robbery, or some other crime? Does it not mean that a parent of a suicide would be justified in vocally speaking out against the guns?”

I never read or hear the “vocally grateful when a gun saves our lives” and only hear or read the “outrage”. All Americans are outraged when a gun is used in a murder in case you haven’t noticed.

SD wrote; “The confrontations (between armed citizen and perp) are rare, per capita.”

As obama stated, if only one or a hundred lives are saved isn’t it worth it?

You and I have no way of knowing how many crimes have been prevented by an armed citizen.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 18, 2013 4:36 PM
Comment #364456

If it is true that the preferred weapons of criminals are guns, logic tells us that the preferred weapon of defense should also be a gun.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 18, 2013 4:39 PM
Comment #364457

“We didn’t get international support, anymmore than we got it for Iraq.”

Of course I fought along side of Australians, British, Koreans, Canadians,etc. Pretty much all of the free world.

“We tried a strategy of attrition on somebody else’s home turf, usually a bad idea, especially during an insurgency.”

Yeah, we should have had the freedom to win the war instead of having “No fire zones” We should have bombed the hell out of North Viet Nam instead of kissing the ass of the students back here.

“We supported corrupt leaders, and failed to register the cost of that on our efforts.”

That was LBJ’s fault. Nixon wanted to win the war as I remember.

“We fought their wars for them, rather than truly teaching them to fight for themselves.”

During my time as an advisor to the South Vietnamese, I can assure you that we truly taught them to fight and defend themselves.

“And moral authority? Whatever we started out with, we wasted. We thought fighting a dirtier war, a more aggressive, expedient strategy would win it.”

You mean like our “pacification program” during 1968 and 1969?

“It didn’t. Our enemies could afford to be more ruthless, especially since they saw it as a defense of their home territory.”

You mean like going into a village and killing everyone there?, or raping and killing the women and children of a village because some of the males were fighting again’t them?

“They didn’t need, nor observe our rules of war, and our failure to do so did not do wonders either for public support there, or public support here.”

We had our rules of engagement and followed them. In only one instance can I recall a unit or individual breaking the rules of engagement and that was Me Lai vllage. Lt. Calley and his Captain were courtmarshalled for that and paid a severe penelty.

“One last question: if you can get an innocent person to reveal false information, what stops a Vietnamese soldier from giving you bad information for the same reason?”

Fear of death

“There are many things I’m naive about, I suppose, but neuroscience isn’t one of them.”

You don’t know as much as you think you do. especially about war and the phycology of war.

“1) Trauma inhibits recall. Being captured, under stress has been found to be sufficient to get people to sing at their best. Pain and suffering after that point renders people less able to properly recall important details.”

They can recall enough to give accurate information in most cases.

“2) Suggestible states are problematic for interrogations. Hypnosis, truth serum administration, use of cult-like re-education practices, and interviews of impressionable children all have demonstrated serious problems in reliability, in no small part because the subject doesn’t have the willpower to resist the interviewer when they go off tangent to the actual memories. Confabulation and confusion result. This is where you get all these recovered memories, with people remembering alien abductions, satanic child abuse, and other imaginary horrors.”

Hanging someone out of a helicopter door and making him think you will drop him is hardly what you are describing.

“3) People still can and do lie, and the certainty that comes with having extracted that confession can blind the interrogator to false results, whether they come from a bad guy who’s endured well enough to lie, or a regular person who just doesn’t want to get hurt anymore”

When they tell you that they are part of a force of 100 troops and they show you on a map where they are located and you go there and engage those troops, I’d say the information is accurate. (It happened more than once)

“4) Their testimony is inadmissable for all those reason in most courts in most countries, meaning that options for bringing the enemy to justices are limited. Torture only increases credibility for those doing the torturing, for everybody else, it brings doubt into the picture, since its perfectly possible to torment a person into saying whatever you want.”

We weren’t taking him to court, Stephen. We were finding out where his buddies were so we could kill them. As I said, You know nothing about war.

Posted by: tdobson at April 18, 2013 4:55 PM
Comment #364458

DSP2195-
1) We are already legally limit the sale of fully automatic weapons. I don’t see you pushing for us to undo that. So, by your own argument, you’re wrong.

2) Republican politics seems to be built at the peak of a Everest sized mountain surrounded by wet slip’n’slides, down which we would plummet, if we ever did anything else than what they said. There’s a reason that argument’s considered a fallacy. Why do you automatically assume the lack of a feedback? It’s not as if your side has had to legally impose that people accept their second amendment rights.

It’s only recent events, which indicate that your paradise of gun ownership hasn’t worked out so well, that has your position in doubt. Let me be blunt. You won’t get another year or two without somebody shooting up another mass of people. Will your political position be stronger then?

3)As for the Proxies for the electorate argument?

Mini-dictators? This filibuster policy your people are engaged in actually is a concentration of the power of the Senate in fewer hands. Whereas an unfilibustered bill would pass or fail based on a majority of the Senate, you would have the minority be able to veto the majority’s legislation, concentrating power in their hands, taking it from the majority.

You celebrate this! Yet you are blind to the fact that it’s so anti-democratic. What about the rights of the constituents of the majority? Why do they have to submit to the will of the minority?

Yes, politicians lie. And the biggest lie you buy is that you’re going to get much out of the GOP any time soon. They’ve failed to take the Senate, the White House. Without those, all they can do is stall and procedurally screw things up. Your dream legislation is dead on arrival, almost a hundred percent of the time. It’s got great nostalgia value, but it ain’t the return of the Gingrich revolution.

You’ve bought into a con.

4)Am I outraged that Democrats have turned the Republican’s strategy back on them? It’s not 100% admirable, but if you object, support filibuster reform so that all policies are given the up and down vote. And if you don’t like that Democrats win many of those votes, then get enough of your people elected to win the numbers to change back the majority to the Republicans!

That’s what I did, rather than ask my party to just endlessly filibuster Bush’s policies from the minority. From my perspective, the Republican party has taken the coward’s way out by using the filibuster strategy. It would take a great many filibusters on our part to equal your party’s recent record. We’re talking hundreds of filibusters here. So I don’t quite see the equivalence yet. And even if it happens, let me ask you a question: what did you expect? Did you expect you could create this nice, shiny way to gut the mandate of the Senate majority, and not get it turned back around on you?

There was a reason why Republicans didn’t pull this **** for the hundreds of years before: because the Democrats would have turned it on them the next time they came to be in the minority.

If you don’t like it, support filibuster reform. But you won’t. I suppose you don’t value your own ability to pass legislation.

5) I argue from my intelligence, as you argue about my intelligence. You need to trash me in your efforts to try and discredit me, insult my knowledge of given subjects. Me? I just recall what I can and research the rest.

You can’t win by your own declarations. The question is, where in all this did you actually offer real facts and logic as a way to bolster your argument? Your arguments are full of fallacies, of assumed facts. You don’t even bother to check your sources.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 5:00 PM
Comment #364459
By all accounts, the Newtown families sought Obama out. If so, it’s patronizing to characterize them as props.

No, there is nothing wrong at all with the Newtown families seeking out Obama and making their feelings known to them, just as with any American. But the choice of Obama to then put them at the head of the debate, parade them on TV, etc at taxpayer expense for the sole purpose of using their grief to get legislation passed, that is where the problem comes in.

Sometimes, policy needs to be expedient, but there is also a price to be paid, for it being too sociopathic.

I’m sorry, sociopathic? We’re talking about a law that a) is admitted by this administration wouldn’t have prevented Newtown and b) the ACLU agreed the legislation was troubling. Since the law would have done nothing that increased enforcement of current laws would have, there is no need for immediate action. All of this is being played out by politicians who are looking at emotion and politics over reason and logic.

Our Republic is supposed to be responsive to our needs, and there is practical value in preventing, or making less likely the kind of tragedies that shock and offend our sensibilities.

There is, if we can do it. But this law couldn’t and to be honest there is really nothing else that can be done that doesn’t tip the balance from preventing crime/death to criminalizing law abiding responsible people.

Here’s a for-instance: because that fertilizer plant was so close to those homes and businesses, people were in harms way when it blew. What would you do, on that account?

Indianapolis had one blow about a decade ago as well, it was near the heart of downtown. Local zoning laws should be doing what it can to prevent dangerous places from being near homes, and most cities do that. Of course, that isn’t the same thing. You aren’t telling people who want to buy homes that they are criminals for doing so, that they need to be registered in a national database and that you now have to move from those homes or face jail time.

If we disregard people’s lives, for all that emotional content, we’re not exactly enacting wise policy.

And if you violate the rights of millions of people to try and prevent the death of a few, knowing full well that you can’t and the violation wouldn’t prevent those deaths, you aren’t enacting wise policy either.

As for Adrienne? She’s responding to your negativism

No, Stephen, you aren’t paying attention. Adrienne didn’t post something innocuous and then get jumped on by everyone and now she is lashing back out. She came (and always has) come on here posting inflammatory comments and links in order to get a response. You don’t see me jumping on people on here without reason, so your suggestion that I am is troubling.

Unlike me, she sees no reason to contain the anger and frustration she gets from reading personally insulting posts.

And when she starts the insulting, we are supposed to sit by and let her do it?

You know, in fact that actually underlines my point. It’s ok for Adrienne to log on here and start posting infalmmatory insulting comments out of the gate, because you agree with her, but if those she is insulting retaliate, they are the ones at fault… It sounds VERY much like the modern progressive attitudes. It’s interesting to see that it doesn’t manifest itself just in politics, perhaps it is a personality problem?

You may think you’re easing the situation by calling her out, but calling her insane, accusing her of hypocrisy is probably only making her angrier.

That’s on her, not me. If she wants to have reasoned discussions (albeit at times heated) without getting personal, then she shouldn’t get personal to begin with.

She doesn’t invalidate my posting. Not unless DSP invalidates everything you’ve written. We’re all responsible for our own responses, in the end.

Actually, no. You see, I’m not a tea party member (and have never been) and I’m not a right winger (and have never been). But you completely miss the point with this comment. *I* am not the one saying that conservatives are policing their fringe, or that the left is more volatile/fringe/loony than the right. So DSP is just being himself and there you go. But YOUR are making, and have been trying to make the argument for months now that the left is better than the right, that the left is policing its loonies, it’s fringe, and speaking out against them. Whenever this is pointed out to you as hogwash, you deflect and try tapdancing around saying no, go read the DailyKOS and see for yourself. Well, I have seen the DailyKOS, and I’ve seen Adrienne, and I see how you respond to it, by defending her as you have just done.

So no Stephen, Adrienne does not invalidate ‘everything’ you say, just everything you say regarding the left being better than the right. Which, admittedly is most of what you have said recently, but it isn’t everything, is it? Meanwhile, I have NEVER said that the right was better than the left or that there weren’t loonies on the right. I have no reason to defend those who are and if you recall recently I was lambasted by many of them on here for my support of samesex marriage.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 5:08 PM
Comment #364460
“The confrontations (between armed citizen and perp) are rare, per capita.”

It’s not nearly as rare as you seem to think Stephen…

“Every 13 seconds an American firearm owner used a firearm in defense against a criminal.”

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year — one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone “almost certainly” would have died had the gun not been used for protection — a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone “probably” would have died if the gun hadn’t been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first — disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn’t make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn’t be called “newsworthy” by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare — well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers — and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm — martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns — gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occurred in places away from the defender’s home.

Source: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 5:14 PM
Comment #364461

Oh, and for the validity of that study:

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

“I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police … What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. [“Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. …I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. … the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. … The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 5:17 PM
Comment #364462

tdobson…it is futile to attempt reasoning with Daugherty…his mind is just wired up wrong. He knows nothing about wartime reality and nothing about having to fight or die.

He is against self-defense and prefers to rely upon others for his safety just as he has become reliant upon government for his other needs. Liberals almost always rely upon someone else to give them something which they refuse to do for themselves. Theirs is a dependence mentality and they object to those who believe in self-dependence. We make them look weak by comparison.

Somehow Daugherty believes he will be empowered if others are disarmed. He is a card-carrying hypocrite as I have twice pointed out above.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 18, 2013 5:20 PM
Comment #364463

I wonder if the ACLU will be added the hate group list for this now:

The immigration reform bill has the potential to be a historic advance for the civil rights and liberties of immigrants and all Americans. The bill would allow millions of immigrants who contribute immeasurably to the vitality of this country to step forward on the road to citizenship.

While this legislation is certainly a breakthrough, it will have to be improved to address severe obstacles for many aspiring citizens. The roadmap to citizenship should not exclude people based on minor crimes or people who can’t afford hefty fines. The bill needlessly expands wasteful border spending at a time when border communities are safe, enforcement resources are at record levels, and prior benchmarks have been met. Furthermore, the mandate to use job-killing, costly and privacy-invasive employment verification (E-verify) raises significant civil liberties concerns. The ACLU will fight every step of the way to ensure that immigration reform achieves citizenship and a fundamentally fair immigration system without harming anyone’s civil rights and liberties.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 5:40 PM
Comment #364464

I know, Royal, but as I said above, It’s fun watching him look like a fool.

Posted by: tdobson at April 18, 2013 5:40 PM
Comment #364465

Rhinehold, do we not now have a “fundamentally fair immigration system?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 18, 2013 5:53 PM
Comment #364466

If we have millions of law-breakers, is the solution to change the law to accommodate them?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 18, 2013 5:56 PM
Comment #364467

tdobson-
From what I can tell, involvement extended mainly to local powers from around Vietnam, Australian and New Zealand, and South Korea. Like the Coalition of the Willing, it didn’t exactly extend too far.

As far as attrition goes, we won virtually every battle we engaged in. But we are a big, expensive, expeditionary military. We have to go home at some point. So whether we held back and tried to negotiate, or went to the other side of being passive aggressive, and bombed the hell out of them, none of that succeeded in actually winning.

The whole point of what went on was to establish South Vietnam as an autonomous nation, capable of sustaining itself. Failure to do that was failure of the war.

It didn’t matter that we fought bravely or well on their behalf. In fact, it often had the effect of making them lazy, weak. Does the little brother need to get stronger, while big bro is around to beat up the bullies for him?

We couldn’t win that civil war for them, and trying to do that only made them less prepared to fight on their own. And when it was all said and done, this whole North/South thing never sold among them.

We’ve been fooled into believing that winning wars is like winning a video game, that when you kill enough people, the level is over, and you’ve won. The reality is, success in war depends as much on what you want out of it as any body count.

We were never clear on how to get to our finishing condition on either Iraq or Vietnam, never clear about how we’d leave those countries in a sustainable state. We instead blundered into this naive sensibility that we could just defer the reckoning indefinitely. You look at the huge debt we’ve got, and trillions worth of it come from the fact that we never came to terms with what we need to do to win in Iraq. What winning looked like, for that matter!

I’m not a pacifist. I’m not lacking in perspective on the complexity, both moral and practical, of fighting a war.
Let me be honest. Hanging people out of a helicopter three or four feet off the ground doesn’t sound like the worst thing anybody ever did.

But Tell me: Nobody ever lied? You never had anybody lead a company that used coercive methods into an ambush? You never got a guy who just made up crap because he was scared, couldn’t answer the question? You probably got some good information. But information we got out of detainees, that others have gotten out of coercive interrogations, on the record, has been found to be spotty at best.

And at what cost? Do our methods take priority over our standing in the world, every time?

I know my lack of experience. But I’ve also seen folks who are supposed to be experience **** things up because they got so committed to thinking their ideas were right that they never critically assessed things.

I don’t trust human nature to be that easy to crack, that simple.

I think using these methods in Iraq and elsewhere backfired on us seriously. I think taking the attitude that winning every war was about overpowering the enemy with firepower, like Nixon, or that we could engage in some kind of diplomatic square dancing, like LBJ’s crew did, were both equally naive positions, and overall, the notion that we could win Vietnam by force, and not our results with the South Vietnamese, was naive, too.

And we got into the same mistake again. We lied to ourselves, didn’t acknowledge what results on the ground were telling us, that this thing was spiralling out of control, and that our troops were caught in the middle because of a faulty policy. Heck, we failed to even get our causus belli right, which meant the war was both a strategic blunder, and illegitimate in the eyes of many.

We get the notion that because of our huge military that the key to every victory is overwhelming firepower and high technology. The real question, though, is whether we actually manage to carry out our goal, and the translation from that intent, to the results of the war are anything but simple.

I think in Libya, we furthered our goals excellently. We minimized our involvement, our entanglement, we used our firepower to effectively neutralize what was in the way, and let our allies do the rest. As wars went, it was quick clean, and the Libyans took ownership of their own situation, for the most part. Time will tell whether it all goes to plan, but I think folks complaining about four dead in Benghazi need to realize that their efforts to overthrow a dictator left far more Americans dead than that.

We did similar things in the Gulf War, and in the Balkans. We efficiently broke down our enemies, then let the international communities and locals deal with the rest.

I’m a believer in seeking out elegant solutions, in simplifying situations where we can. I don’t believe long wars end well. I don’t think most of the long wars we get into are well thought out at critical points. I think when you get into a situation like that, over time, you’re apt to see more complication, not less, and make more enemies in the given population, not less. Unless you conquer people and break them permanently, which we have neither the stomach nor the inclination to do, you’re usually not going to be able to stick around for a long time without costing yourself a lot of money and a lot of blood and heartache.

We can talk about what was expedient on the micro level of this, but were our policies as whole a positive for our country’s interests? I don’t believe so. We fought long expensive wars that cause inordinate levels of casualties. We tried to paper over the failures of the wars with lies that undermined the trust of people back home, and then used divisive means to try and salvage the reputation of the war among the voters.

I am no dove, but I am no hawk. I’m tired of the kind of thinking that leads us into dark places, without redeeming success.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 6:06 PM
Comment #364469

I’d like to steer the conversation back to the original topic; if people want to talk about gun control, let me know and I can create a separate article.

Breaking News: FBI releases photographs of bombing suspects.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 18, 2013 6:17 PM
Comment #364471

tdobson-
If you think I look like a fool, look in the mirror. If You’re a supporter of the conservatives, much of your policy has come to ruin.

It’s worse to be the fool than look the fool.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 6:37 PM
Comment #364472

“Are you saying the founders meant for the military to get more modern firearms, but the American citizens should stay with muskets?”

Well, yea. At least that is what even the conservative Supreme Court justices have said. Otherwise, prohibitions and limitations on machine guns, bazookas, etc. would be unconstitutional. What they have said is that citizens have a 2nd Amendment right to own and possess those firearms normally available to citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution, i.e, pistols and rifles.

It’s an interesting problem if the rationale for the 2nd Amendment rests on an argument for an armed citizenry capable of resisting the tyranny of the government. How is the citizenry going to resist a modern army with arms limited to those of 1787?

Times have changed. Even the most conservative, originalist Supreme Court Justices recognize that. The drafters of the Constitution distrusted large, professional, standing armies. They even provided a clause in the Constitution prohibiting funding of an army for more than two years. They thought that the professional armies of European powers had been the ready instruments for costly wars and oppression. Better to avoid them but have armed “well regulated” citizen militias available in case of conflicts.

That was how the US basically functioned for most of its history. Raise an army during conflict. Disband it when the conflict was ended. The concept of a large peace time military was anathema for most of our history.

That all changed after WWII and the cold war. Since that time, for better or worse, we have maintained the largest peace time military the world has ever seen.

It would seem to me that the argument for either having an armed citizenry capable of resisting government tyranny or capable of quickly forming a military force during a conflict has been rendered moot by the times. We now have a huge standing professional military. Citizens would be powerless against it. We are also not going to rely upon citizen militias in any international conflict.

So, yea, we have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. But, not any and all arms. Just those available at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Nobody thinks that citizens have the unfettered right to own machine guns, tanks, fighter jets, etc. Its a right that appears to have lost its basic rationale.


Posted by: Rich at April 18, 2013 7:04 PM
Comment #364473

Whoever they are they are young. The pictures are ok but not great. Security camera technology still has a long way to go. I’m wondering if these guys are already in a different country.

Posted by: BZA at April 18, 2013 7:25 PM
Comment #364475

These are only suspects. The Richard Jewell debacle tells us to be careful about jumping to conclusions. I am sure the FBI is well aware of the problem.

Posted by: Rich at April 18, 2013 7:42 PM
Comment #364476

“From what I can tell, involvement extended mainly to local powers from around Vietnam, Australian and New Zealand, and South Korea. Like the Coalition of the Willing, it didn’t exactly extend too far.”

You are wrong. You forget about the British and the Canadians and the Phillipinos

“As far as attrition goes, we won virtually every battle we engaged in. But we are a big, expensive, expeditionary military. We have to go home at some point. So whether we held back and tried to negotiate, or went to the other side of being passive aggressive, and bombed the hell out of them, none of that succeeded in actually winning.”

It’s better than losing every battle. Bombing the hell out of them helped us win some of those battles. Failure to do that in a more substantial would and did cost us many lives.

“The whole point of what went on was to establish South Vietnam as an autonomous nation, capable of sustaining itself. Failure to do that was failure of the war.”

Again you are wrong. The whole point was to stop the North, allied by Communist China and the Soviet Union from over running the South.

“It didn’t matter that we fought bravely or well on their behalf. In fact, it often had the effect of making them lazy, weak. Does the little brother need to get stronger, while big bro is around to beat up the bullies for him?”

I didn’t find them to be lazy or weak. Sometimes, if “big bro” is not there, little brother can’t survive the bullies.

“We couldn’t win that civil war for them, and trying to do that only made them less prepared to fight on their own. And when it was all said and done, this whole North/South thing never sold among them.”

We could have wor that war if our Generals had been given the opportunity to fight it as a war should be fought. They never wanted a “North/South” thing, but they didn’t want to live under communist rules either and they were willing to fight to keep from it.

“We’ve been fooled into believing that winning wars is like winning a video game, that when you kill enough people, the level is over, and you’ve won. The reality is, success in war depends as much on what you want out of it as any body count.”

I would never compare war to a video game. War is never a game, however, if you kill enough people, you DO win.

“We were never clear on how to get to our finishing condition on either Iraq or Vietnam, never clear about how we’d leave those countries in a sustainable state. We instead blundered into this naive sensibility that we could just defer the reckoning indefinitely. You look at the huge debt we’ve got, and trillions worth of it come from the fact that we never came to terms with what we need to do to win in Iraq. What winning looked like, for that matter!”

I never went to Iraq, so I can’t speak of it, however, in Vietnam, we were very clear about how we would leave that country. We would leave when the North withdrew from the South and agreed to not attack them any more. What is NOT clear about that?

“I’m not a pacifist.”

Your attitude tells me you are either a pacifist or a coward. I’ll let you decide which.

“I’m not lacking in perspective on the complexity, both moral and practical, of fighting a war.”

You are very much lacking in the practical aspect of fighting a war.


“Let me be honest. Hanging people out of a helicopter three or four feet off the ground doesn’t sound like the worst thing anybody ever did.”

To be honest, waterboarding isn’t either.

“But Tell me: Nobody ever lied?”

Of course they did, but you would be surprised at the number of times they told the truth.

“You never had anybody lead a company that used coercive methods into an ambush?”

No, and this shows how little you know. When we captured someone, their forces assumed they were dead. They didn’t know we were gaining information from them and thus didn’t have the opportunity to set up an ambush.

“You never got a guy who just made up crap because he was scared, couldn’t answer the question?”

I don’t know. Sometimes we got bad information and would waste the time it took to run a patrol, but most of the time, it was pretty accurate information.

“You probably got some good information. But information we got out of detainees, that others have gotten out of coercive interrogations, on the record, has been found to be spotty at best.”

We did get good information on several occasions. That saved some lives and made it worth it to get bad info at other times.

“And at what cost? Do our methods take priority over our standing in the world, every time?”

Our methods worked and didn’t affect our standing in the world.

“I know my lack of experience. But I’ve also seen folks who are supposed to be experience **** things up because they got so committed to thinking their ideas were right that they never critically assessed things.”

And I’ve seen folks who are spposed to be experienced **** things up because they didn’t know what they were dong.

“I don’t trust human nature to be that easy to crack, that simple.

I think using these methods in Iraq and elsewhere backfired on us seriously. I think taking the attitude that winning every war was about overpowering the enemy with firepower, like Nixon, or that we could engage in some kind of diplomatic square dancing, like LBJ’s crew did, were both equally naive positions, and overall, the notion that we could win Vietnam by force, and not our results with the South Vietnamese, was naive, too.”

And just how in the hell are we going to win a war without overpowering force? You are again showing how foolish you are.

“And we got into the same mistake again. We lied to ourselves, didn’t acknowledge what results on the ground were telling us, that this thing was spiralling out of control, and that our troops were caught in the middle because of a faulty policy. Heck, we failed to even get our causus belli right, which meant the war was both a strategic blunder, and illegitimate in the eyes of many.”

You aren’t talking Viet Nam now.

“We get the notion that because of our huge military that the key to every victory is overwhelming firepower and high technology. The real question, though, is whether we actually manage to carry out our goal, and the translation from that intent, to the results of the war are anything but simple.”

The key to victory in ANY war is overwhelming firepower. Without firepower, you are going to lose.

“I think in Libya, we furthered our goals excellently. We minimized our involvement, our entanglement, we used our firepower to effectively neutralize what was in the way, and let our allies do the rest. As wars went, it was quick clean, and the Libyans took ownership of their own situation, for the most part. Time will tell whether it all goes to plan, but I think folks complaining about four dead in Benghazi need to realize that their efforts to overthrow a dictator left far more Americans dead than that.”

We will have to wait and see how that turns out. I’m hopeful but not too optimistic

“We did similar things in the Gulf War, and in the Balkans. We efficiently broke down our enemies, then let the international communities and locals deal with the rest.

I’m a believer in seeking out elegant solutions, in simplifying situations where we can. I don’t believe long wars end well. I don’t think most of the long wars we get into are well thought out at critical points. I think when you get into a situation like that, over time, you’re apt to see more complication, not less, and make more enemies in the given population, not less. Unless you conquer people and break them permanently, which we have neither the stomach nor the inclination to do, you’re usually not going to be able to stick around for a long time without costing yourself a lot of money and a lot of blood and heartache.

We can talk about what was expedient on the micro level of this, but were our policies as whole a positive for our country’s interests? I don’t believe so. We fought long expensive wars that cause inordinate levels of casualties. We tried to paper over the failures of the wars with lies that undermined the trust of people back home, and then used divisive means to try and salvage the reputation of the war among the voters.

I am no dove, but I am no hawk. I’m tired of the kind of thinking that leads us into dark places, without redeeming success.”

The last section of your thesis is just drivil.

Posted by: tdobson at April 18, 2013 7:46 PM
Comment #364478

tdobson,

The problem with the Vietnam War was that we stepped into the shoes of the hated French who had just been defeated by the Vietnamese.

We did that with an arrogant disregard for the Geneva Agreements of 1954 which ended the French Indochina war. Under the terms of the agreement, Vietnam was to be temporarily divided into the North and the South pending unification elections to be held in 1956.

The US refused to allow the unification elections. Eisenhower was aware that the party of Ho Chi Min would win overwhelmingly. At that time, it was unacceptable for a communist party, regardless of its popularity, to gain control of another Asian country. The dominant theory of an international communist conspiracy and the potential domino effect on all of Southeast Asia controlled US policy.

The involvement of the US had almost nothing to do with the interests or wishes of the people of South Vietnam. Indeed, we supported an oppressive dictatorship in Diem in order to block unification under the North.

We spent over ten years, enormous military resources and lives propping up the serial dictatorships of South Vietnam. It was to no avail. The South simply did not have the will and popular support to prevail. It was as simple as that.

Many say that we should have invaded the North. Bomb it into submission, etc. But, what kind of victory would that be? Another few decades of guerrilla warfare? An unpopular occupation of a former colonial outpost of France?

We gave the South more than ten years to develop its political, military and social infrastructure. It did not. It did not for a very simple reason: it did not represent the will of the people of Vietnam.

Since the end of the war, all the reasons for our initial intervention have proven false. Vietnam has proven to be an independent country. It fought a border war with China shortly after the US left. It invaded Cambodia to overthrow the tyrannical rule of Pol Pot and returned Cambodia to popular rule.

Posted by: Rich at April 18, 2013 9:05 PM
Comment #364480
Rhinehold, do we not now have a “fundamentally fair immigration system?

No

If we have millions of law-breakers, is the solution to change the law to accommodate them?

If the law is a bad, broken and unjust law, yes. It’s like if they decided to pass gun control laws that required you register your weapon into a national database. That would be an unfair and unjust (and unconstitutional) law. But say it passed. Would you do it? If you don’t, you are a lawbreaker. When they realize it is bad law and rescind it, should you still go to jail for having broken the law while it was in effect?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 9:35 PM
Comment #364481
Well, yea. At least that is what even the conservative Supreme Court justices have said. Otherwise, prohibitions and limitations on machine guns, bazookas, etc. would be unconstitutional. What they have said is that citizens have a 2nd Amendment right to own and possess those firearms normally available to citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution, i.e, pistols and rifles.

I would like to see the case decisions on these…

What I found was that in US V Miller, the court does seem to hold the door open that if it is shown a gun is a “militia weapon” then the 2nd amendment forbids the feds from regulating that weapon.

They also defined what a ‘militia’ was:

“The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

Not ‘at the time’ of the Constitution, but at the time of being called. Meaning present day. IE, what is in common use now.

US v Heller has this to say about the subject:

“Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.”

And further clarified:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Note, when they say ‘at that time’, they are not saying at the time of the writing of the constitution, but at the time the law is made or in place, ie NOW.

We have a ban on fully automatic weapons. Semi-automatic weapons are common, something that a militia person would have and therefore cannot be limited from owning. The proposed banning of many of these types of weapons would have been unconstitutional. In addition, I believe that limiting magazine cartridges would have been a violation of the constitution as well.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 9:53 PM
Comment #364482

I’m not sure Rhinehold, but I would bet the Feds would be much harder on the gun owner than they are the illegal. In fact, I would imagine Holder would have no trouble throwing gun owners in prison.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 18, 2013 9:56 PM
Comment #364484

If you want further examples of how the parents of slain children are being used for political gain, ask yourself why those parents who are opposed to any changes to the gun control laws weren’t seen anywhere near the President? Take, for example, Mark Mattioli. Is his suffering not as much as the others? Or was he just not part of the equation because he disagrees politically? Or how about the parents of Christina Green, killed during the Tuscon attack, who said “This shouldn’t happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we’re going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.” Or the father Rachel Scott?

No, they aren’t valued by the administrations purposeful use of emotion and fear to convince people of their views. When you have a politically driven administration and a willing news media, you never get the whole story. And that’s the real shame here. A good press would have searched out Mark Mattioli and countered their news media with opposing views. But that’s not what we get these days. Now it is just echo chambers and an extension of the administration’s agenda. You can bet that most of them would have been all over the opposing view and been giving facts, not just repeating what the administration says had the president had an R next to his name though.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 10:18 PM
Comment #364487

Rhinehold,

You are correct. I was mistaken on the interpretation of “in common use at the time.” However, the justices, even the most conservative, fall back on “unusual and dangerous” to uphold bans on automatic weapons, etc.

Its a problem. There is the obvious need to reconcile the 2nd Amendment with the requirements of public safety. We aren’t going to be calling up citizen’s militias with their personal weapons to defend the nation. That is no longer how we provide for the common defense. But, there remains the 2nd Amendment without a purpose anymore. At least in my opinion.

Posted by: Rich at April 18, 2013 10:54 PM
Comment #364488
But, there remains the 2nd Amendment without a purpose anymore. At least in my opinion.

No, the purpose of the 2nd amendment was not because of the need for a militia, it was just one of the reasons expressed at the time. The Supreme Court has already addressed this in the quoted decision

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

And who are you to say a militia will not be needed? Perhaps it won’t, but there are scenarios that may play out where it just might.

For example, I live in a small populated area of the country. Police getting to my house takes some time… Let alone any military option.

But I know that my neighbors and I have weapons for self defense. If a group of escaped convicts running from a penitentiary were to stumble across our ‘neck of the woods’, I know that my neighbors and myself would be able to defend ourselves and perhaps bring them to justice until the police are able to arrive.

What is that other than a ‘militia’?

The Supreme Court has rightfully determined that the individual right to keep and bear arms is not limited to the use of a ‘militia’ but for self defense as well, based on the words and debates on the topic during the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In much the same way that Roe V Wade has made it clear that abortion is a right to privacy (found in the 9th amendment), so has Heller V DC and McDonald V Chicago affirmed that the right to bear arms is found not in just the 2nd amendment but also in the 9th and 10th and 14th.

Just as you would say that the government has no business limiting the right to an abortion because it is ‘decided law’, why don’t you give the right to self-defense with a weapon the same weight?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 11:08 PM
Comment #364489

tdobson-
British help was largely under the table. The Prime Minister couldn’t even admit the full extent of his help to us, having to promise to Parliament that Britain was not helping America in Vietnam. As for the rest?

I’m pretty knowledgeable about geography, so when I saw the nations involved, the majority of them were Southeast Asian nations around Vietnam. South Korea was the ally we helped in the last war, and Australia and New Zealand were essentially British Commonwealth Nations tied to the war through treaty groups. This wasn’t a UN operation like the last one. The French weren’t involved, as they had just got the hell out, none of the rest of the European nations were that keen on helping us… Much of our sphere of influence was against us

And really, who contributed the vast majority of the troops? That shouldn’t be a difficult answer: we did.

As for the point of the war?

Look, you can argue about the wording, but it comes down to being able to leave, at worst, a few thousand troops behind, like we did with the Korean Ceasefire.

Or, are you thinking, just march through the North? Do you remember Korea well enough to remember how that strategy worked out there?

Running wars based on fantasies is only a good thing if you’re writing a book. If you’re not Tom Clancy, and you can’t invent some reason why China doesn’t intervene to save another Satellite, or something like that, then the consequences of what you’re asking are likely to be considerable.

The war we wanted to run. I hear that so much. Well, look at Iraq! We overran the whole country in just months. Did that mean we won? No. We killed practically everybody that stood against us. We win? No. We kept on killing tons of enemies for a long time. Did we win? No.

I’m not making the absurd suggestion that overwhelming force isn’t a part of fighting a war well, but it’s got to be overwhelming force that turns something in your favor, that makes a difference. I see us do this time and again, where we just try and overwhelm them with bombs and bullets, and don’t get them to quit.

The enemy has got to come to your desired conclusion, or otherwise be made helpless to keep you from getting what you want.

I kept on hearing during the Iraq war about this idea that if we stayed long enough, this would convince the Insurgency to lay down their arms. Just perseverating would do that!

But it didn’t. They didn’t lay down their arms. You want to know why? Because they knew they had the advantage, and it wasn’t simply a matter of Americans being particularly weak. No foreign nation is going to shed blood indefinitely to occupy a nation whose people don’t want them there. It’s expensive, it delivers a nice, steady current of heartache and heartbreak back home as the casualties come in, and it ties up resources that people want to use elsewhere, or want to have in reserve for essential defense purposes.

The only way we made progress was by co-opting some of our enemies, and successfully convincing others that al-Qaeda in Iraq was more of a threat to them than to us.

Even so, we still have a mess there, and I’m not certain what comes out of Iraq in the long term.

I don’t want us to go into another war like that, where the main argument for staying is that if we don’t stay, we lose.

If the strategy is good enough, when we execute it, we will be able to step back from actively fighting that war, without things going to hell. If we don’t have options for that, we’ve lost already, and it’s time to stop losing.

As for interrogation?

First, I have never heard of anybody getting waterboarded who reflected on it as anything less than one of the worst experiences they ever had. Nobody who watches somebody go through that can say it’s a minor thing. It’s not simulated drowning, it is drowning, with perhaps the barest of safeguards to prevent death. It’s one thing to give somebody a little scare, waterboarding’s another thing entirely.

And as I noted, they did lie, they did give bad information. Coercive methods will do that. And really, I am willing to be that somebody who got captured was deliberately given bad information to pass on. Maybe not with your people, but with somebody. It seems like a natural trick to pull.

As for our standing in the world?

Vietnam, and the things we did there are a touchstone for many, for complaining about America’s corruption as a world power. They point at that and say “Americans did this, despite what they claim.” And such methods and teaching such methods have made our reputation questionable in many places in our own Hemisphere, and now in Iraq and elsewhere.

What do we say when somebody’s torturing on of our own now? Can we say, don’t do that, it’s against international law? We broke it ourselves.

Getting back to military victory? I think it’s important to know what to destroy, what enemy capability to go after. Sometimes firepower can get it for you, but sometimes it’s a matter of other methods: bribes, spies, sabotage, or using that firepower, that force at certain specific places with key importance. Sometimes, it’s playing the psychological game better than our opponents, something Americans, with their disdain for psychological tactics, sometimes forget to do.

What I’ve seen, as of late?

You call it drivel, but why is America ending up worse off after its wars if we’re doing things right? I’m no stranger to perseverating in hopes of getting a better outcome. But I’ve done it enough to dislike getting into that situation. I’ve learned to try and look for the ways out of being stuck like that, and not to be ashamed to try something new.

We don’t seem to do that. We seem to get so politically invested in doing things a certain way that changing direction becomes politically impossible. We had to wait until 2006 for any hint of an alternative plan, three years during which the insurgency escalated along with our casualties. And then the Surge.

And after that?

We’re doing it wrong. Our wars shouldn’t be open ended affairs, because those situations just mutate and get away from us, and the whole point of going to war is to take control of that situation when no other set of means is appropriate.

If we go to war, we’ve got to have an outcome in mind. the more steps it takes to achieve that, the less we can predict the outcome, control it. Small wars are the better idea. Long wars have just mutated and gotten away from us. They’re like the military equivalent of a heroin addiction. We keep fighting them to avoid losing them, just like addicts keep on seeking the high to avoid the crash. No. We need to get better at judging the proper goals and the proper means to seek out those goals for our military. Trying to redeem whole peoples and whole nations through endless wars has been a disaster for America, and a costly burden for future generations.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 11:24 PM
Comment #364490

Rhinehold-
Exactly what about the requirement to register a weapon infringes on the right to keep and bear arms? At the end of the day, you still get to keep and bear the gun, just as you get to keep and drive your car after you register it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 11:34 PM
Comment #364491

Rich-
I remember rather specifically, in the movie Fog of War, Robert McNamara talking about meeting with a Vietnamese official, talking about China doing its domino thing, and his response was that Vietnamese pretty much hated the Chinese, and had been fighting wars with them for hundreds of years on their border.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 11:38 PM
Comment #364492

Wow. The Ricin Guy is truly out of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 11:49 PM
Comment #364493
Exactly what about the requirement to register a weapon infringes on the right to keep and bear arms? At the end of the day, you still get to keep and bear the gun, just as you get to keep and drive your car after you register it.

First, it is a violation of the 4th amendment.
Second, a national registry would also be a violation of the 10th amendment.

Let’s examine your ‘car registration’. First, this is a state registration, the federal government could not create the requirement for a registration. Second, you only need to register the vehicle if you drive the car on public roads. If you buy a car and never drive it (ie, keep it in your house/garage for personal at home use) then you are not required to register it.

Now, if you carry your gun on your person away from your property, that has to be registered and a carry permit authorized before you can do so. But simply owning a gun, just as simply owning a car, is not something that can be ‘registered’.

The main concern beyond those are the fact that a gun registry could then be used by an oppressive administration as a means to gun confiscation. This is a big and valid concern, remember that in Germany the elected government decided to confiscate guns in just this way. So the argument that ‘this cannot happen’ is debunked by many examples of the past.

Say perhaps that we have other attacks by terrorists and the government in their ill conceived notions determine that all muslims or those of middle east descent are no longer allowed to own guns. They now know where to go to get those guns. Or if a Republican administration decided to harass progressives who own guns, they can search through that database and use that information (illegally) to harass them. And yes, this has happened with other such databases like IRS records. It’s not a stretch or ‘paranoia’.

I could go in further depth here, but the ACLU is concerned about it, I’m sure you can read more from them if you want some background.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2013 11:57 PM
Comment #364494

BOTH killers are seen running away in this still shot photo. You will immediately notice that guy in the white hat but what you will also notice of you move to your right is suspect #2 right next to the lady in the pink shirt. Same pants, same shoes and same hat.

http://i.imgur.com/I1dF69f.jpg

Posted by: BZA at April 18, 2013 11:59 PM
Comment #364495
Wow. The Ricin Guy is truly out of it.

On this, we can agree wholeheartedly.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 12:02 AM
Comment #364496

“Rhinehold-
Exactly what about the requirement to register a weapon infringes on the right to keep and bear arms? At the end of the day, you still get to keep and bear the gun, just as you get to keep and drive your car after you register it.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2013 11:34 PM

I’m a little confused here: the Manchin /Toomey Amendment said there was no national gun registry. The president came out and said there was no registry and that the NRA was lying when they said their would be one. Stephen argued that the NRA and Tea Party conservatives were lying about a registry leading to gun confiscation. And now Stephen says, “Exactly what about the requirement to register a weapon infringes on the right to keep and bear arms? At the end of the day, you still get to keep and bear the gun”

You see Stephen, you can’t even be trusted to not change your story. Now, a national registry is okay. So what’s next; confiscating guns that the socialist don’t deem worthy of owning? Stephen has already made a list of what guns he thinks an American should own.

New York:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryUbJfg4tAo

https://damdems.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/governor-cuomo-said-he-wants-to-confiscate-your-guns/

Missouri:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/14/missouri-dems-introduce-alarming-gun-confiscation-bill-giving-law-abiding-gun-owners-90-days-to-turn-in-certain-firearms-or-become-felons/

Minnesota:

http://monderno.com/monderno/minnesota-democrats-move-to-confiscate-firearms/

California:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/9410/california-democrats-move-to-confiscate-guns/

Texas:

http://www.glockforum.net/forum/off-topic-discussion/3820-democratic-official-admits-plan-confiscate-guns.html

And the list of DEMOCRATS whose ultimate goal is to confiscate guns.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 12:20 AM
Comment #364498

Well, it appears to be the work of foreign terrorists. Not right or left wing American extremists. One is dead, one on the loose. One MIT campus policeman is dead. Kudos to US law enforcement for finding these monsters o quickly. Condolences to the police officer’s family and friends.

Posted by: tcsned at April 19, 2013 5:52 AM
Comment #364499

Two suspects 1 dead 1 on the run, brothers from Russia. Sorry Adrienne your wish didn’t come true. If anything these 2 are left wing kooks.

Posted by: KAP at April 19, 2013 8:35 AM
Comment #364500

2 brothers, one 19 and one 26 (who was killed); Chechnya Muslim terrorists. Well I guess we will have to listen to Stephen and others explain how they were correct in waiting to see who these guys were before blaming anyone. Appears police are in gunfight at this time. Adrienne will continue to read leftist blog sites and accuse conservatives.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 8:37 AM
Comment #364502

The very fact that these terrorist are Muslim and not white americans will cause a silence from the left, at least until they can get their TP and nra attacks up and running again. The big question will be, will our pro-Islamic president and AG consider these as terrorists or criminals?

Posted by: George at April 19, 2013 10:01 AM
Comment #364503

DSP2195-
Did you have a fight with logic and she went to stay with her sister?

No, really. I ask Rhinehold a question about what would make the Registry unconstitutional. I did not ask him about the registry in the bill, because to my knowledge there isn’t any, and I have yet to have claimed otherwise. I asked him what would make a registry unconstitutional.

Is there anything in what I said that would make your conclusion necessary? No, there isn’t. I’m not even sure, given all the comments I wrote that I even mentioned this in the first place, though I would agree with those who say this bill does not create a national registry.

Let’s get into your links:

“Democrats are f*****s and dumbass’ [sic].”

(Really, dumbass is not the word to make your grammar mistake on.)

The actual tag your first guy used.

The comment in question was walked back, and the legislation that did pass did not have the NYPD busting down doors to get guns.

On the subject of Missouri, The legislators in question probably were trying to score points with their constituents. The districts in question were in the St. Louis area. But since both Houses are well over two thirds Republican, their bill has the same likelihood of passing as a snowball has of entering and exiting hell intact.

Despite the reverse being true in Minnesota, it seems like the bill in question there is pretty much dead.

California’s legislation is likely go through, but I don’t see the confiscation clause, and I’m not sure anything like this is actually enforceable, especially on an ex post facto basis. See the handgun ban in DC.

Yes, there are some legislators that have pushed legislation of that kind, and the truth is, much of it is just political BS.

But that was nothing like what was in the Senate, and nothing in Manchin-Toomey was favorable to a registry.

As for the terrorists themselves? Let’s let the evidence tell us what their motivations were. For somebody who gets eminently ticked off when somebody points the finger in your direction, you seem quick to jump to favorable opinions yourself.

More importantly, here’s a crucial thing, and I’ve long said it: profiling runs into exactly these problems. Yes, we picked up a Saudi, we put our attention on some other brown skinned guys, but who is it who turns out to be the culprits?

A pair of almost literal Caucasians! White guys! If they are anything but lone gunmen, they are evidence that paranoia and racism will not avail us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2013 10:02 AM
Comment #364504

By the way, I’ve kept on saying that the bombers could be anybody, and among the examples I gave were al-Qaeda style attackers. But I don’t see any Right Winger here predicting that they’d be Chechens.

I looked over on Kos, by the way. Rather than bury such details, Kos has details about their religion and their views right on the front page. Once again, the right has their fantasy about the left, and it has nothing to do with reality.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2013 10:12 AM
Comment #364505

Stephen, I have learned that you simple mind cannot comprehend more than one question at a time; you seem to get confused and just rattle on and on. So did this fellow Texan, a Democrat politician say guns should be confiscated?

http://www.glockforum.net/forum/off-topic-discussion/3820-democratic-official-admits-plan-confiscate-guns.html

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 10:29 AM
Comment #364506

Stephen: “A pair of almost literal Caucasians!”

Funny stuff. Let’s see, a roundup:

* The anti-jihadi websites are in a frenzy today one again calling for not allowing any Muslims of any origin into the US. I guess if you can’t profile you can just ban everyone who admits to being connected to some flavor of Islam.

* The Alex Jones types are saying this was still Navy Seals that did this and one patsy is dead and the other soon. Right. Wow.

* The right is greatly relieved this was not one of theirs which is relief that quickly turns to gloating and of course bigotry toward Muslims and immigrants in general.

Personally I think I’m relieved this isn’t home grown right wing terrorism. The only problem is this will let the right continue to ignore the continued threat of right wing anti-government extremism and laugh in the faces of any liberal that suggested that as a possible motive early on.

Of course it’s not that funny if you’re the family of those murdered by sovereign citizens and other right wing extremists which usually involves the death of law enforcement officers for daring to believe US citizens are subject to US laws.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2013 10:33 AM
Comment #364507

We know there is a move in the Obama administration to find a reason to confiscate guns from veterans. Stephen, what this doctor says is correct, and the questions asked by VA doctors are correct. Since I a vet and since you are not; you have no idea about this. I suggest you actually listen to the interview of this VA doctor. Now the question is; why would the government want to disarm veterans?


http://teapartyorg.ning.com/video/full-interview-va-doctor-exposes-national-gun-confiscation?id=4301673%3AVideo%3A1424338&page=5

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 10:40 AM
Comment #364508

Adam Ducker; you mean like when the Democrats through all the Japanese/Americans in internment camps…right.

I don’t believe the right wingers are as relieved as the left wing is disappointed that these terrorist were actually Muslim. Goes both ways, don’t it?

If the truth was really known, when this information came out, Stephen’s and Obama’s words were “Oh Crap”. But we will never know, will we?

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 10:55 AM
Comment #364509

DSP2195: “If the truth was really known, when this information came out, Stephen’s and Obama’s words were ‘Oh Crap’.”

Why would they say that?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2013 11:18 AM
Comment #364510

Adam we know Adrienne was hoping he was a right wing extremist. Stephen always blames the right for this country’s ills and if you can’t understand that just read his archived articles. Obama is always blameing republicans and the right for his failed policies.

Posted by: KAP at April 19, 2013 11:29 AM
Comment #364511

“The big question will be, will our pro-Islamic president and AG consider these as terrorists or criminals?”

Are terrorists criminals, George?

As for Obama being pro-Islamic, tell that to the hundreds of Islamic terrorists killed by the US during his administration. Jeez, this guy can’t win for losing with you guys. Just a month ago, he was being criticized for killing jihadist American terrorists without due process. Now, your preemptively criticizing him in anticipation that he will treat these US resident jihadists with too much due process.

Posted by: Rich at April 19, 2013 11:30 AM
Comment #364512

DSP2195-
You know, I don’t envy you your constant state of anxiety. State politicians will always be more extreme than national, and there is a difference between bills offered, and bills passed.

The confiscations you fear, even if they could survive judicial review, aren’t even passing most of the state legislatures you’re talking about.

But hey, you need your fear, your hatred. You folks have been saying these things about us for decades, if you were right, America would have been in far worse shape by now.

The culprits defied the expectations of many partisans on both sides. These aren’t Arabs or even Persians. If they dyed their hair blond…

We can’t defeat these people by being your kind of raging bigot.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2013 11:37 AM
Comment #364513

I am one of the biggest defenders of the freedom of speech and the press, but some of these people asking questions… Maybe we should screen a few of them out?

“How do you feel about America?”

I have to say, I like the uncle, he’s dealing with the stupid questions well…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 11:44 AM
Comment #364514
“The big question will be, will our pro-Islamic president and AG consider these as terrorists or criminals?”

Last time I checked, terrorism was a crime…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 11:46 AM
Comment #364515

KAP: “Adam we know Adrienne was hoping he was a right wing extremist.”

I don’t know if hope is the right word as much as simply knowing it was highly probable. If you don’t think bombs going off in public could be right wing terrorism you aren’t uptodate on history. You never know who might be watering that tree next.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2013 11:47 AM
Comment #364517

Adam Read her posts, SHE HOPED. Adam I know there are CRAZIES on both sides of the spectrum, you have yours and the right has theirs. I know history.

Posted by: KAP at April 19, 2013 12:01 PM
Comment #364518

KAP: “Adam Read her posts, SHE HOPED.”

All I see is Adrienne suggesting this “might” be right wing extremism followed by this site’s right wing readers crapping their collective cages finally to the tune of accusing Adrienne of taking pleasure in the attack. But no, I don’t see any hope in anything Adrienne wrote. Just a lot of typical right wing horse crap this site is getting known for.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2013 12:10 PM
Comment #364519

Stephen said:

“DSP2195-
You know, I don’t envy you your constant state of anxiety. State politicians will always be more extreme than national, and there is a difference between bills offered, and bills passed.”

So, when Obama was a state Senator in Illinois and was in favor of the most strict gun controls, including taking guns away from the citizens of Chicago, he was an extremist; but now that he is the President, his views have done a 180? Right Stephen, and you wonder why people think you are an idiot.

I notice you didn’t deny the federal government, through the VA, is systematically setting the stage to confiscate guns from veterans.

Here we go again, covering he same ground:

“I don’t know if hope is the right word as much as simply knowing it was highly probable. If you don’t think bombs going off in public could be right wing terrorism you aren’t uptodate on history. You never know who might be watering that tree next.”

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2013 11:47 AM

Adam, you mean like the Weathermen Underground or the SDS?

Rhinehold, I know terrorism is a crime; but since radical Islam has declared war on America, there is a difference between terrorists being tried in a military court or being tried in a civil court; with all the rights given by the Constitution, and access to free legal services, and liberal judges bent on their own progressive agenda. You are perfectly aware that Obama and his administration are almost unable to declare attacks on America as terrorist attacks. Just review their comments about Benghazi. Terrorism, is a word that sticks in the craw of Obama.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 12:13 PM
Comment #364521

Adam, Adrienne only comes on to rag on conservatives and to push her left wing BS. She like you and Stephen blame all this countries ills on conservatives. It was also HIGHLY probable that it was an Islamic extremist from the make up of the bomb, typical of those used in Afganistan. Adam, I don’t expect you would see that hope was used in her writing seeing how you and her are both on the left side of the spectrum and you NEVER see bad in your own, only those who disagree with your politics.

Posted by: KAP at April 19, 2013 12:28 PM
Comment #364523

It is believed, according to MSNBC and CNN, that these brothers spent some time in North Africa, possibly training.

Posted by: George at April 19, 2013 12:36 PM
Comment #364524

DSP2195: “Adam Ducker; you mean like when the Democrats through all the Japanese/Americans in internment camps…right.” … “Adam, you mean like the Weathermen Underground or the SDS?”

I’m not sure I understand your points.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2013 12:37 PM
Comment #364525

KAP: “She like you and Stephen blame all this countries ills on conservatives.”

There’s that typical right wing horse crap I’m talking about. There’s no need to debate with folks like you KAP, you’ve got us all figured out.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2013 12:40 PM
Comment #364526

Adam, Weathermen underground and sds are home grown left wing terror groups. Adam when was the last time you blamed a Democrat for some mistake or anyone from YOUR SIDE.

Posted by: KAP at April 19, 2013 12:50 PM
Comment #364527

Obama’s elitist mentality is about to seal the fate of Democrats from red states in 2014:

“President Obama has reached his reached his wit’s end with the inability of Congress to basic the most basic of gun control reform laws due to the undue influence of the National Rifle Association over republican politicians in Washington. His next move is to bypass the NRA and the GOP both by revisiting his earlier executive orders on gun control and ramping them up to include all the changes he can’t get through Congress and more, and then begin work on permanent strong gun control legislation for introduction in 2014 after his democratic party has taken greater control of congress in midterm elections.”

http://www.stableytimes.com/news/obama-time-to-bypass-nra-gop-with-executive-orders-on-gun-control/

Adam, it was your analysis:

”* The anti-jihadi websites are in a frenzy today one again calling for not allowing any Muslims of any origin into the US. I guess if you can’t profile you can just ban everyone who admits to being connected to some flavor of Islam.”

Of course, you can be like Stephen and just pretend you didn’t say it or imply it.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 12:51 PM
Comment #364528

“KAP: “She like you and Stephen blame all this countries ills on conservatives.”

There’s that typical right wing horse crap I’m talking about. There’s no need to debate with folks like you KAP, you’ve got us all figured out.”

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2013 12:40 PM

Adam, evidently you pay no attention to the postings of your socialist brothers and sisters on WB. Or perhaps you don’t read the Kos and huffpost, you know, the place where you guys like to pat each other on the back.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 12:56 PM
Comment #364529
but since radical Islam has declared war on America, there is a difference between terrorists being tried in a military court or being tried in a civil court; with all the rights given by the Constitution, and access to free legal services, and liberal judges bent on their own progressive agenda.

Wow…

You do realize that in a military court people still have all the rights given by the Constitution and access to free legal services, right?

I’m sorry, but this biased view of our judicial system that you’ve been fed by Hannity is just not accurate or based in fact.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 1:05 PM
Comment #364530

Rhinehold, I may not be as well informed as you pertaining to law; but I do understand that military trials and civil trials are conducted differently.

By the way, I NEVER listen to Hannity, so I don’t know his views on the subject.

Do you agree with Obama and Holder that the terrorists in GITMO should be tried in our civil court system? And why?

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 1:19 PM
Comment #364531

KAP: “Adam, Weathermen underground and sds are home grown left wing terror groups.”

Right, and the point is?

“Adam when was the last time you blamed a Democrat for some mistake or anyone from YOUR SIDE.”

I’m not really sure. My point is that the things I write about on this site are very narrow compared to my full range of interests, opinions and viewpoints. Saying I blame all the ills on conservatives is simply a lie I take offense to. But that’s the kind of debate you bring to this site, KAP.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2013 1:21 PM
Comment #364532

By the way, I did not say terrorist tried in a military court were not entitled to council, but there are some differences between the MCJ and civil courts.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 1:23 PM
Comment #364533

DSP2195: “Of course, you can be like Stephen and just pretend you didn’t say it or imply it.”

I’m really lost, you’ll have to backtrack a bit to help me understand your point or else just drop it altogether. What does my statement about anti-jihadist bloggers have to do with anything?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2013 1:23 PM
Comment #364536

Just drop it AD, I’m not in the mood for mind games.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 1:33 PM
Comment #364537

DSP2195: “Adam, evidently you pay no attention to the postings of your socialist brothers and sisters on WB.”

Are there socialists on this site? Does anyone here self-identify as a socialist? I’d love to know. I assume you just think that because certain Democratic policies line up slightly with socialist policies then that makes us socialists. Of course you have to ignore our love and support of capitalism and free enterprise. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Since when did any of your arguments on this site stand up to reason anyway?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2013 1:36 PM
Comment #364538
Do you agree with Obama and Holder that the terrorists in GITMO should be tried in our civil court system? And why?

Yes.

Because that is the right thing to do, that is the American thing to do.

Holding someone indefinately and not even giving them the chance to defend themselves, or even charging them, is abhorrent and we are better than that.

BTW, if they want to give them military trials, then fine, do it. But they aren’t. There are people who have been there over a decade, had nothing at all to do with 9/11 or al qaeda and can’t present their evidence because we won’t charge them. Many of them are currently on hunger strikes but are being force-fed against their wills.

This is not how Americans should act. This is not what America should be. By this action, we are no better than those who have ‘declared war on us’.

BTW, tell me, what is the difference between bombing innocent people at the Boston Marathon and lobbing missiles from a military drone at a wedding?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 1:40 PM
Comment #364539

DSP2195: “Just drop it AD, I’m not in the mood for mind games.”

I really appreciate you suggesting I’m smart enough to try and play “mind games” but you’re the one making points that make no sense in the context they are in. I’m just asking you to clarify.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2013 1:41 PM
Comment #364540
Are there socialists on this site? Does anyone here self-identify as a socialist? I’d love to know. I assume you just think that because certain Democratic policies line up slightly with socialist policies then that makes us socialists.

Just like libertarians are not anarchists and republicans are not racists. But, those are convenient labels that many on the left use. Take Adrienne for example, calling me a ‘bagger’ and ‘right-wing lunatic’ when I’m neither a tea party member OR a conservative/right-wing….

The use of labels like that is meant to disparage the person you are talking to, to dehumanize them and attempt to invalidate their arguments without having to do the heavy lifting of actual logical and reasoned debate.

You know, like the president did the other night.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 1:44 PM
Comment #364541

KAP-
I’m a thirty-three year old man. I wasn’t born when Bill Ayers and the original Weathermen became fugitives, when the group dissolved. I was barely starting Kindergarten or in pre-school when the last remnants of the group were rounded up after the Brinks Robbery.

Bringing up the Weathermen now is kind of anachronistic. The left-wing is not that kind a place for armed radicals anymore.

Also, if the people in question are al-Qaeda linked, they’re linked to what can only be called a very ultraconservative movement. Their attitudes about women, about gays and lesbians, about religion in general run rather counter to what many Democrats and liberals believe.

So why do we get associated with them? I don’t know, could it be that some people want to get an unfair advantage through an unfair association, play on the old notion of liberals and Democrats as a fifth column? Yeah, just slide out the atheist commies and slide in the terrorist jihadists.

If only you guys could see how much I roll my eyes and shake my head at the stupid things you say about us.

DSP2195-
As for Radical Islam?

You know what? My message to them is that within the law, you have every right to believe as fundamentalist of a vision as you want. Folks might not like you on that account, but that’s your problem, the price of freedom.

But if you try and translate whatever animus you might have into violent acts? Then justice will come to you, and that will be that. I’ve got no sympathy for these people, despite the bull**** you keep spouting. Look through my archives. Even my opposition to continuing the war in Iraq was about making sure that the full weight of our nation’s military was coming down about the ears of these scumbags.

My perspective is, by focusing on broad categories of people, you don’t just smear millions of people who don’t deserve it, you also expand the lists of suspects beyond reason.

As a matter of fact, law enforcement officials, having found that out the hard way, have moved more towards behavior based profiling- what you have been doing, when you have been doing it.

Terrorism is a behavior, not a racial, religious, or ethnic characteristic. Once you realize that, you can narrow down your suspects, and follow real leads appropriately, something that is much more in line with our nation’s professed view that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2013 1:47 PM
Comment #364542
The left-wing is not that kind a place for armed radicals anymore.

Oh, if that were only true… :/

My perspective is, by focusing on broad categories of people, you don’t just smear millions of people who don’t deserve it, you also expand the lists of suspects beyond reason.

I hope this is a new leaf for you Stephen, because you have done this exact thing previously, in these comments, by accusing the Tea Party and conservatives of being complicit in the actions of individuals that you identify as being part of the group as a whole.

Like McVeigh who was a lone wolf terrorist, not associated with any ‘group’, calling him ‘right wing’, not ‘nutjob’ as is the title he deserves.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 1:56 PM
Comment #364543

Rich, there are several problems in the list you linked to, including people who are not actually ‘right wing terrorists’. I think a lot of it has to do with not understanding the terms being used and gross generalizations that the left buy into (all racists are ‘right wing’, etc).

It also leaves out the left wing attacks and plots and conspiracies that have occurred during that time, but that’s not really what the people who put the list together are going for, are they?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 1:58 PM
Comment #364544

Stephen, I don’t associate you with any of those radical left wing terror groups. IMO your more like the flower children of my generation the type that say make love not war. The type that say my way is right everyone else is wrong, Democrats good Republicans bad. The weathermen were brought up to be an example of leftwing terrorist, as others have brought up rightwing terrorist. Both sides have their loonies and still do. You said how you shake your head and roll your eyes about things conservatives say about you and YOUR PEOPLE, guess what the same applies with us.

Posted by: KAP at April 19, 2013 2:08 PM
Comment #364545

“Rich, there are several problems in the list you linked to,..”

Rhinehold,

I am wrong on many issues. But, on this one, I plead innocent. I don’t recall presenting any link to a list of right wing terrorists.

Posted by: Rich at April 19, 2013 2:19 PM
Comment #364546

Well Stephen, what do you know! They are MUSLIM extremists. The more things like this happen the more Obama looks foolish in his dealing with Israel encouraging them to deal with Palestinians. Liberal fools!

Posted by: BZA at April 19, 2013 2:38 PM
Comment #364547

Rich, you are right, my bad. It was Adam who posted the link.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 2:40 PM
Comment #364548

Rhinehold-
While I repeatedly warned Republicans to remain open to the possibility that it could be one of their own, I also explicitly said and reiterated multiple times that others could be responsible. If it seems like I perseverated on the topic of right wing terrorism for a bit, it was only to respond to folks who were denying it as a possibility, never to insinuate, much less definitively state that the Right Wing was Responsible.

As for the degree of association?

Let’s try a little exercise here. First, can I remind you that the first site DSP linked to had the entry in question under the category of “Democrats are f*****s and dumbass’ [sic].” ?

Oh, lets go further now.

From the entry on Cuomo itself:

“The libtards are hard at taking your guns away just like people have thought all along.”

Libtards. Rather common that one.

“Governor Andrew “HOMO” I mean Cuomo (D-NY), came out on the radio today saying he would like to “confiscate your guns or he would endorse a mandatory gun buy back program”. “

Classy, that one.

From a comment:

“They are gonna have some fighting on there hands cause they arent getting my guns with me still alive….”

Then one after that:

“Same here. My reply? Come get them asshole. In person PLEASE! You will have to violate the NO TRESPASSING signs posted in accordance with the LAW to do so, to a LAW ABIDING gun owner who trains for head shots, not center mass. Body armor is useless when head shots are the target. Pink spray is a beautiful thing from the back of the skull of a jack-booted thug.”

Charming. Exactly the sort of fellow who makes me comfortable about a lack of gun control.

In fairness, most of the Blaze comments are halfway reasonable, some even making my point about the unlikeliness of the passage.

But there are a few, just to demonstrate:

“What is funny is that even if they could get it past they actually think anyone would pay attention to it. See that’s the thing with Progressive Liberal’s….they think they are always the smartest people in the room. What happens after 90 days….hmmmm. Maybe teachers asking young students something like…does your daddy have one of those bad guns that kill little children in your home….good girl…you get a lollypop.”

“California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) defended the massive gun control package, saying “we can save lives.”…..no what there going to do is start a civil war.”

“Can’t somebody find where these people live and help change their views? The system is overwhelming packed with this mindset. No legal means is ever going to repair this country.”

“To those who say this is moot since currently MO legislature is R,…

The point is not to pass this bill today. Rather this is a common long game information operations strategy to slowly shift the barriers, offer the seemingly absurd now so ‘less absurd’ restrictions seem more ‘reasonable’ and then over time the constant slow beat in the background makes the ridiculous seem an option.

E.g. Homosexual marriage, legalized drugs, cradle to grave welfare, institutionalize racism against us evil white men,…

“1. Start having early birthday parties for the family just in case.
2. Get your personal papers in order just in case.
3. Make amends with those you need to make amends with
4. Set yourself straight with the Lord.
5. Get together with you gun owner friends and selegrate a mass funeral just in case.
6. Start to live everyday as if its your last, just in case.

Remember we did not start this, its not our fault.”

“Just read an article about the Knockout Game on WMD in St. Lewis where a gang of black athletes
play by punching a person in the face and if they don’t knockout the victim they kick and punch them
until they are out. The Mayor say this happening and the Police do nothing and will not report in the
media because of PC. To hell with PC, get these gangs off the streets and let the public know what
is happening. The people need the means to protect themselves.”

“If they come for my weapons I will not comply. If they come to my door I will post on the Blaze to let everyone know that I am about to defend myself. I will not take my own life. If I am dead it will be at the hands of LEO’s. From my cold dead hands.”

And in response to that:

“They’re likely be a posse of citizens waiting for them when the exit the abode.”

“With you. In St.Louis county. There would be blood if they tried.”

From monderno:

“First “he” got bin Laden…now “he’s” coming for gun owning Americans…don’t underestimate the marxist-in-chief people….State by State or County by County they are setting little ‘time-bombs’ for us…now they want to start indoctrinating kids at an even earlier age with the big preschool push”

“I was born and raised in Alexandria and could count on our ELECTED OFFICALS to do the right thing, not so much now, one thing I know for sure is I know some democrats and republicans that vote for this bill that will find there asses on the unemployment line come next election, and if they try to take the weapons by force……LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN.”

From Godfather Politics:
Well, first, the lovely post accuses the Democrats of having gerrymandered or nullified all the Conservative and Libertarian voices, even though the commission that recently redistricted actually did so according to a new, non-partisan arrangement.

From the comments section:

“I’ve been curious as to where the first shots of The Civil War II were going to be fired…

California is a pretty fitting place for it.”

“I move we round all the California Democrats, California Socialists, Californinia Marxists and all, the left leaning California entertainers, put them on a boat for a nice vacation in Obamaland, aka, Hawaii. About halfway out torpedo the boat.
Problem solved
Next state? Speak up.”

“Californians need to stop running away from the problems there and start resisting the tyranny. Get rid of those marxist nazi criminals that have a hold on your freedoms.”

“You are FOOLS to think it can’t happen here. My Navy Vet friends 1958, registered .22 pistol was taken in 1966 by the FBI. The laws were changed re that gun. 2 yrs later,1968, it was found in a cache’ of guns the Black Panthers had in CA. Yes, they can and will take your guns!”

A charming comment from below, at one of the links:


Paul Thomas — It was great to see the baboon and the buffoon both pouting as the senate slaped therir faces,for we the people. Let freedom ring!!Molon Labe!”

Molon labe translates to “come and take it.”

The point of all this is not merely to point out offensive comments, but to point out a common theme: a believe or even a desire for the gun rights debate to come to a violent conclusion.

This is the kind of culture that the NRA has been selling people on, quite openly. In response to what, a government that’s taking their guns left and right?

No, in response to a government that’s hardly even able to get expanded background checks through.

Flip through the comments section of just about any political article these days, and you’ll find comments like those or worse.

That in mind, now ask yourself, why do many liberals think of conservatives when they hear about a shooting or a bombing?

Because we have the sense that some people are serious enough about what they’re saying to start the shooting.

In other words, we’re taking them at their words.

Now Democrats should watch what they say, too. I don’t deny this. But you should realize that years of casual tolerance of this kind of commentary has left the Right Wing embracing a nest of serpents.

When the Tsarnaev’s identity broke, the uncle of those young men quickly went out and categorically rejected what they had did, and said it had brought shame on them and their family.

That was the smart thing to do, and that is why I do of anybody who uses their left wing politics or opposition to Bush or the Republicans as a justification for violence.

So, that’s my view. We all got people who embarrass us. We can’t stop it. Freedom means that teh stupid, sometimes it does burn, and severely.

No Democrat should respond to the hijinks of the Republicans with violence, or the threat of violence.

Having said that, will you and others reject those who, in the name of your politics, would do the same? I think you could. I think you should. They are an embarrassment to you, and their rhetoric is part of what gets the left scared about the Right’s behavior.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2013 2:44 PM
Comment #364549

KAP-
I am not a flower child. If it weren’t for the last ten years, I’d be closer to a blue dog than I am now.

I’m no ardent gun control fan. I’m just not big on the extremity of the gun rights crowd, much less the paranoia they seem to work from, in order to deafen people to appeals to moderate gun control.

My position would be that moderate gun control is a more defensible position than the absolute gun rights position.

I admitted Left Wing Terrorists were a possibility. But it seems we don’t have those here. These aren’t Marxists if what they’re saying is true.

My contention was always that we didn’t know, and that proper judgments would be based on finding things out, not simply making broad judgments.

BZA-
Resolving Palestine would deprive the jackasses in al-Qaeda and elsewhere of the hatred that brews in that place, and the excuses that those places provide for attacks on Israel, and on the US for being their ally.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2013 2:52 PM
Comment #364550

Exactly.

These Boston terrorizers make me question legal immigration about as much as Lanza or Loughner made me question birthright citizenship
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2013 2:56 PM
Comment #364551

Stephen, you’re under the illusion that there are universal rules to a game that we all follow meaning if Israel would only do “x” the violence would stop. Let me say this to you as clearly as possible. You are absolutely delusional if you believe that. They invent their own reasons ACROSS THE GLOBE to create violence. Also, Israel is a tiny country so if Sharon was stupid enough to listen to Obama there’s no turning back. Palestinians with the adjusted boarders would be even closer to Tel Aviv with access to bomb that entire place. So what if Obama is wrong and they end up bombing half of Tel Aviv? Are you liberals going to compensate them for loss of life and rebuilding half of their country? SO THEY SHOULD JUST TRUST THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT FIRE ROCKETS INTO THE EDGES OF THEIR CITY? Maybe I’m mistaken but I thought trust was earned. How do you entrust the lives of your countrymen with the untrustworthy? Admit it. You’re wrong. Checkmate!

Posted by: BZA at April 19, 2013 3:03 PM
Comment #364552
While I repeatedly warned Republicans to remain open to the possibility that it could be one of their own, I also explicitly said and reiterated multiple times that others could be responsible. If it seems like I perseverated on the topic of right wing terrorism for a bit, it was only to respond to folks who were denying it as a possibility, never to insinuate, much less definitively state that the Right Wing was Responsible.

Ah, revisionism…

A number of right wing groups associated with the Tea Party are also associated with militias, white supremacist groups, and other such alarming and extreme organizations.

Additionally, Oklahoma City remains a touchstone for a hidden, underlying fear of many Center to left folks. In seeing the ramping up of right wing anger and separatist sentiments, this pull away from the mainstream, from basic empathy with the left as human beings, people like me see a potential for a repeat of the militia violence that marred matters in the 90’s.

You can’t go on and on about how the left is treatening the survival of the country, about how Obama is some marxist muslim plant, trying to bring our country to ruin, and then expect that somebody out there won’t take that rhetoric at face value and take, what in that context, would be a rational next step: removing, fighting those threats.

Sure, it motivates many people to the polls, sends others to the gun shops to buy up rifles like they’ll be gone tomorrow, ammunition like the apocalypses is about to occur. But realistically, it also convinces some that, in the tradition of watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.

As for the quotes by those calling Democrats stupid names, we’ve been over that and I’ve shown you the same on liberal websites, even your vaulted DailyKOS, that do the same to the right. They both do it to the libertarians. It’s wrong and stupid, it is part of the dehumanization process that makes up much of our political climate today. But do NOT pretend that it is something wholly owned by the right.

As for McVeigh, I’m not sure how many times to explain it to you that a) McVeigh as a lone wolf terrorist who got a couple of people to assist him, not part of a group who was planning to do these things as an attempt to overthrow the government. He was lashing out at the government for what he thought was deplorable treatment of Ruby Ridge and Waco. Much in the same way that muslims are upset about the way that Obama is treating innocents in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. Much in the same way that eco-terrorists are upset about the destruction of the earth. Much in the same way that animal rights terrorists are upset about whaling. Etc. To paint the group of people that they would gravitate to as being the reason that they have gone over the edge to take matters into their own hands is equally deplorable on both sides.

The right who wants to go after ‘muslim extremists’ instead of just ‘extremists’, making sure to get that association in there is the SAME as the left who wants to go after ‘right-wing extremists’ instead of just extremists. They are wanting to go after a political mindset that has nothing to do with this type of action.

The ‘watering the tree’ phrase is one used by Jefferson and does not mean what you THINK it means by the ones who use it. It is not a call for revolution, it is a call for defense of our rights against an aggressive government. It means defending ourselves from those aggressions, not committing aggression before the fact. It’s something that scares the left because they don’t understand it and they don’t TRY to understand it. It just sounds bad and if they can label a whole ideology as ‘whacko’ then they’ve done their job of dehumanizing those people.

I’ll give you a small example. Earlier today one of the people I am friends with on facebook is Thomas Lennon. He posted a status this morning that said:

“A background check bill. You’re either for this, or you’re in favor of crazy people killing us and our children. Again, I need to drop some friends, so if you’re a fucking idiot, please make it known with your comments, so we can part ways.”

Do you see the problem here? He has bought into the rhetoric of the President that ‘if you aren’t with us, you’re against us’. Does that sound familiar? So now I’m left with a dilemma, do I continue to be friends with someone who is calling me a ‘fucking idiot’ because I know he is just buying into the emotive rhetoric of the President, or do I tell him what I really think and cause more hurt feelings and start a big blowup? Especially when we agree on just about everything else, etc…

This is the type of rhetoric that leads to CIVIL WAR, Stephen. Rhetoric on both sides that is based on emotion and not based on logic or reason, or understanding that someone with a different point of view are not evil monsters, just see things a little differently. Of course people who are not for putting a law into effect that does nothing doesn’t mean you are ‘for killing kids’. It’s a ridiculous sentiment that incites and furthers hatred. It doesn’t help, it only makes things worse.

If you have fear, it’s not rational. Instead of keeping that fear and using it to further your dislike and mistrust of those you disagree with, I say you should look to try and understand their point of view and come to realize that they are just frustrated, just like people on your side are, because of the rhetoric on both sides. Look at the facts and what they are saying and see if perhaps there is more that you agree upon than disagree about. Stop seeing those people as less than human, stupid, racist, unsofisticated, etc.

Furthering the political divide is going to cause it to become bigger and fuel potential violence by either side… It takes both sides to get there, not just one.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 3:11 PM
Comment #364553

Stephen, I don’t own a gun but I would never consider depriving anyone of owning a gun except for criminals and the mentally challenged. That is where my focus is, is preventing the mentally challenged from getting a firearm as was the problem with Sandy Hook and Gabby and a few others in the resent past. As far as Boston is concerned, I had no comments on who did it until they came up with the pressure cooker bomb like the type used in Afganistan. That’s when my leaning was to Islamic extremist.

Posted by: KAP at April 19, 2013 3:12 PM
Comment #364554

By the way Stephen, the flower child thing is just my opinion of your way of thinking.

Posted by: KAP at April 19, 2013 3:35 PM
Comment #364556

BZA-
My sense is that the fewer excuses a person is allowed, the more their conduct reflects on them, not on their opponents.

KAP-
That may turn out to be a connection.

What I’d say about what I’ve written so far is that when I’m dealing with a situation like this, I like to deal in pieces of information that make something logically necessary. I didn’t feel the Pressure cooker was unique enough. The fact that they turned out to be Chechnyan did rule out the other possibilities for the most part. The real question now, and the reason we ought to catch them, is the question of whether they were radicalized loners, or part of a group. It’ll be easier to decipher their place in all this if we can unlock the case from within his brain, and not have to piece it together post mortem.

Rhinehold-
Go from what I said about “necessary” pieces of information.

I never said that Right Wingers must be the culprits. I did say that pushing this much tension into the conservative movement, getting people thinking that a civil war or some other kind of armed conflict could be possible could become a problem at some point.

I think the Republicans, in the interest of their own power are setting people on hair-trigger levels of tension. This is a separate issue in my mind from what the identities of these bombers were. This time, it was somebody else. What about next time? The fact that the WTC bombing preceded the Oklahoma City bombing should not be lost on people.

And it should not be lost on people that many of those folks think that a war between them and the government is imminent.

You think it sounds like defense. Not to me, because I know many of these things aren’t true, but if people respond as if they are, I know that it could mean the lives of Law Enforcement officers or worse. The danger paranoia poses to others is that a paranoid person or movement will lash out at people minding their own business or doing their jobs, because they’ve gotten it into their heads that they’re under threat, when the people they feel threatened by aren’t really doing them any harm. Paranoia can twist the legitimate impulse towards self-defense into an illegitimate act of pre-emptive ideological violence.

That’s what scares me about all this talk of Democrats as these revolutionary Marxists, trying to destroy the nation. It invites somebody to do something about it, something that will undoubtedly fit the notion that there does not exist a legal framework for the balance to be reset peacefully.

That is the horrific thing about somebody saying that “Second Amendment Remedies” should be applied if an election doesn’t go their way.

I trust in the rule of law, and when I feel that I’ve been wronged, or that the policy isn’t good, I try to work within it.

But I look at these other people, and they’re saying if they don’t get their way, they’re going jump over that barrier, and it sounds like people like me will be their targets. I want people to calm down, and re-dedicate themselves to the rule of law, and the submission to the principles of the Constitutional Republic. The greatest danger to a Republic like ours is the belief that the Republic in question is no longer sufficient to govern, a belief spurred on by a zealous belief in political principles that don’t admit to the central truth that justifies democratic republics like ours: That people don’t always agree, and that such differences must be resolved peacefully, with people free to disagree with those in power, even if they don’t get their way.

Anything else takes us down a road that kills the greatness of the legacy our Founding Fathers left us with. The left us with a way to be both free and well-governed, a difficult mix to achieve.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2013 3:38 PM
Comment #364557

Stephen, the ‘second amendment remedies’ quote you keep throwing up was one person saying something once on one radio station, Sharron Angle. And she also said that she didn’t want it to come to that.

However, the left media wanted to use it to further their political agenda so they repeat and repeat it and repeat it over and over again.

Now who is putting this in the minds of more and more people, the one person who said it on a local radio station once or the continual repeating of the phrase millions of times by people trying to smear the entire ‘right wing’ as wanting this to happen?

Do you see the point I am trying to make?

This was her quote

You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 3:54 PM
Comment #364558

Stephen, I did say in an earlier post that the bomber could be just a copy cat because the recipe for those types of bombs are on Radical Islamic web sites. As far as the 2 brothers being loners or not I have NO COMMENT YET.

Posted by: KAP at April 19, 2013 3:57 PM
Comment #364559

Some people do evil things that are not at all based upon political beliefs. Why do we usually attempt to find a political link to some abhorrent deed?

Occasionally we hear or read of some very good deeds being done as well. Rarely, if ever, do I find those good deeds being associated with some political party, race, or religion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 19, 2013 3:58 PM
Comment #364560

Is there any Constitutional right that requires the individual exercising it to be registered with the federal government?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 19, 2013 4:14 PM
Comment #364561

Royal, I’m sure the progressives on this site would have no problem with everyone wanting to get an abortion having to sign up into a national registry so that we can track who is having how many abortions and what the impact of the action is, right?

Or that every person who write a blog on the internet should be registered into a registry with their real names and addresses before they could comment on any political issue.

Or that every person at the age of 18 must register their sexual orientation, race and gender.

Or a registry of birth control usage…

It’s an interesting discussion I think. Is it just the rights that they want to protect that they will protect, not the rights that others want to protect that they don’t care about?

Seems a little authoritarian to me, trying to tell others what rights should be important to them.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 4:29 PM
Comment #364562

Seems a little authoritarian to me, trying to tell others what rights should be important to them.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 4:29 PM

Of course you are correct. All constitutional rights are important to every American whether they know it or not. The battles we see over rights today are waged primarily for political advantage = political power, not from conviction.

There is simply no way to unravel one right without it affecting every other right. The fabric of the Constitution can only remain whole if the entire document is respected and honored and kept intact.

There can never be an amendment to the constitution that would deny the inalienable rights contained within. Among those rights is the right to life…and consequently, the right to protect that life. These rights, our founders determined, come not from government and thus can not be taken away by government.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 19, 2013 4:40 PM
Comment #364563

Correction: “unalienable”

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 19, 2013 4:47 PM
Comment #364565

I find it incongruous with the liberal position that some dismiss rights spelled out in the Constitution and advocate rights not found in that document.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 19, 2013 4:55 PM
Comment #364566

BTW, the dialog on FOX and especially Lindsey Graham is deplorable and IMO UnAmerican.

@GrahamBlog The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to “remain silent.”

this shows why “the homeland is the battlefield” - would be nice to have tracking drones over Boston

(from twitter)This guy on Fox wants to torture the live terrorist to see if Putin sent him because “we all know Chechens kill Christian.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 4:56 PM
Comment #364567

This is how desperate the suspect is:

BREAKING NEWS: With his brother shot by police, Dzhokhor A. Tsarnaev drove over him, two law enforcement officials said.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 4:59 PM
Comment #364568

And I love this tweet:

I’m going to travel back in time to 1995 and write a post for Tom Ricks on how Tim McVeigh brought the war in Northern Ireland to America.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 5:04 PM
Comment #364569

BTW, the Lindsey suggestion concerning Miranda Rights aren’t limited to Republicans. It’s actually Obama’s policy…

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10holder.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights.

Mr. Holder proposed carving out a broad new exception to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling. It generally forbids prosecutors from using as evidence statements made before suspects have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer.

He said interrogators needed greater flexibility to question terrorism suspects than is provided by existing exceptions.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 5:15 PM
Comment #364570

Boston Police scanner is discussing the possibility that they have found the suspect. Not apprehended yet.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 19, 2013 5:25 PM
Comment #364571

Stephen: BZA-
My sense is that the fewer excuses a person is allowed, the more their conduct reflects on them, not on their opponents.

So when they start firing rockets into Tel Aviv at least we can say they have no excuse now. Really? That’s your argument? That’s worth putting lives in jeopardy? Weak, Stephen. Weak.

Posted by: BZA at April 19, 2013 5:49 PM
Comment #364572

I’m just curious; has anyone ever heard Stephen Daugherty admit that he or one of his Democrat politicians were wrong?

To me; his writing suggests he is nothing more than a plant on this web site, whose sole purpose is to defend all Democrat politicians and liberal policies.

He states one thing and then denies he said it; as Rhinehold and others have pointed out. This site is really a waste of time. The same material is covered over and over, with the same results.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 6:20 PM
Comment #364573

This site is really a waste of time. The same material is covered over and over, with the same results.
Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 6:20 PM

I would disagree DSP. I learn many things on this website and gain insight into how others think. We discuss current topics with many different views.

I have never expected that I could ever make a conservative out of a liberal. I do hope though, that I might help them understand why I cherish our existing freedom and liberty and why they should as well.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 19, 2013 6:31 PM
Comment #364575

Perhaps Royal, but I find their constant liberal theology to be very depressing. I have to get away every once in a while. After listening to their warped thinking I feel as if I have been swimming is a sewer and need to get away to get clean. It is a constant battle defending our constitutional rights from those who do not believe in constitutional rights

Take Stephen Daugherty for example; he states he is a Christian and loves to quote what Jesus would do and say, and yet he does not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God; he talks about Constitutional rights, but he does not believe in the Constitution. In his words, the Constitution is not a fixed document, it is evolving. If we don’t have anchors like God’s Word and the Constitution to cling to, what hope is there?

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 6:54 PM
Comment #364576

Rhinehold-
Her quote was “I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

She was talking about this as the solution to tyrannical government.

This is pretty much assumed, never really laid out for Americans to decide what is truly tyrannical.

I don’t think, and most Americans don’t think that a little more restraint on Wall Street, and big businesses that have proven unable to police themselves is tyranny.

She criticized big government in America as being against the first commandment. Not first Amendment, which would be bad enough, but first Commandment. She pulled her own legitimate rape episode by saying that raped women should take the child and carry them to term as a way to turn lemons into lemonade.

And the woman she beat in the primary? Well, the woman got beat because she proposed chickens as a means to pay for healthcare.

Tell me something, with people this radical, this out of touch, what can one in good conscience do to avoid the threat of a second amendment remedy? That’s the question.

Suggesting it is bad enough. Republicans have had their way for a long time, but no longer. Doesn’t it seem odd to you that after so many years of being in control, even going back to the status quo that existed before them is considered socialism? Considered a Marxist takeover?

My fear is a combination of justifying the use of violence as a response to political change they don’t like, and the heavy rightward swing of the party, which makes it more and more difficult for people like me to compromise with them, much less satisfy their sense of right and wrong.

What am I supposed to do, if I honestly believe what I believe? If you want a debate with me, my responses is fine, let’s have a debate. But what it seems is happening is that the debate is being pre-empted in favor of this kind of political extortion, where the resetting of the balance of the debate and power in America is being set by sheer, stubborn obstruction, and political blackmail in the form of threats.

Is it time for people like me to consider acting in kind, getting guns, and then threatening to react against conservative tyranny? Is that what I have to do, to get my point of view respected? Do I have to start shouting redfaced in the middle of their townhalls?

I’d rather not. I think my way is better. But will Democrats and Liberals forever dwell in the Tea Party’s shadow, while they grab more power than their number entitle them to?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2013 6:57 PM
Comment #364577

Daugherty asks; “Is it time for people like me to consider acting in kind, getting guns, and then threatening to react against conservative tyranny?”

I certainly hope not Stephen. There are very few Americans who advocate violence to achieve political gain.

I see no conservative tyranny if one considers the usual definition as: “A form of government other than a monarchy in which the formal written constitution is not adhered to and is broken by force of arms by a single person who then undertakes to rule as a monarch and primarily in his personal interests.”

Conservatives are not attempting to change the constitution, but rather, demand adherence to its original meaning.

Find those who publicly advocate or threaten violence against others and demand their arrest. Is that not the proper action to take?

As heated as the discussions sometimes become on WatchBlog I don’t recall anyone threatening others with violence. Do You?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 19, 2013 7:19 PM
Comment #364578

Royal Flush-
Right, right. Whatever you say.

I’m simply threatening to do precisely what the Tea Party is doing. You say you don’t seen conservative tyranny in what you’re doing, well, I don’t see liberal tyranny in what I’m doing. Either one of us could be wrong, but as long as we’re raising tensions by bringing the spectre of armed rebellion against tyranny into things, when the other side tries to move their agenda along, there won’t be any listening, there won’t be any calm consideration of matters.

People will just think of their own power, their own urge, their own need to carry out their agenda.

The whole point of the government we have wasn’t to canonize one political movement or another as the true blue heirs to the founders. No, the point was that everybody thought that they were in the right, but you couldn’t run a government simply by making one faction or another happy.

The framers did not design the Senate or the House so that everybody could step forward, like children in a school play, and give their standard lines. They built it so that the delegates to Congress in both the house and the Senate could represent those people in the inevitable negotiations.

And with the way that the Framers focused on function in their Constitution, I think it’s a fair bet to say that it wasn’t their intention for one group to just hold the breath and keep things the way they like them. Though they didn’t make things strict majority rules, they did make most parts of this system dependent on consensus, not only within the chambers, within the branches, but between them. They made it to where there was this constant cycling of people in and out of government, to where that the chief jurists of the nation would be accountable to both Congress and the President, as one part of the whole checks and balances scheme.

Folks like you think folks like me just want to wipe our rear ends on the constitution. But we don’t. I especially admire it’s structure, it’s interlocking barriers to one set of committed zealots taking over everything.

But there’s always a weakness in that, and it’s mainly to do with the informal business of whether people accept the authority of their government. I hear crap about nullification, states rights, things like that coming from the Tea Party folks, stuff that sounds disturbingly close to what I once heard of back in the pre-civil war history of our country. As a kid who paid attention in social studies, who was even apt to read not just his textbooks, but his brother’s as well, I’m all too familiar with what happened in the lead up to 1861.

If we are coming closer to another civil war, it won’t be Democrats that brought us to that unfortunately threshold. We’ve been trying to hold your people back.

The truth of the matter is, Americans need to commit themselves to the rule of law, because without it, only raw power can work. We don’t need that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2013 8:34 PM
Comment #364579

Apparently, we got him. Now he gets to audition for singing lessons.

Best possible outcome.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2013 8:46 PM
Comment #364638

BZA-
What’s your alternative? Wait until God rings in the rapture, sets things like some people want?

What’s the endgame, or is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict supposed to be another endless war which has to be forever fought in order to be not lost?

DSP2195-
And when, dear man, did you ever admit any of your conservative ideas could be wrong?

No, you cling to them.

I believe the bible was inspired by God, but I believe two things: that the cultures the message was delivered through filtered it somewhat, and that we ourselves filter things, make idiosyncratic, and culturally biased interpretations in order to understand its contents.

The bible is a document whose contents have been translated multiple times, written over centuries. Much of it is the result of oral transmission, with all that means.

As a person who is all too aware of the treachery of words, of the way stories can get twisted and exaggerated, of the dreamlike way that a compelling story can overwhelm us, the real miracle is not God forcing some guy to transcribe things in absolutely perfect detail, it’s God getting his point across through all the things we humans can do to screw it up. There’s plenty of evidence of mistranslations, of words shifting in meaning, plenty of evidence that people will wreck any perfect transcription.

My sense is that the Bible was not inspired in the sense of some guy taking dictation from God. My sense is that God inspired an essential core to the scriptures, in terms of the stories, the relationships and behavior of the figures in them. That could endure generations of mistranslations, resist misunderstandings better, communicate Gods message to us poor screw-ups more effectively despite all we could do to mess it up. Do most people remember the exact words of David’s fight with Goliath? Doubt it. But they do remember the story. Same thing with Adam and Eve and the creation story, same thing with Joshua’s various battles.

And this works because this is how we actually remember most events in our own lives, and most event we hear from others, in this fashion. If God depends on us remembering every word perfectly, then his message would be as fragile as lace made from glass.

So, long story short, my disbelief in literalism comes from my belief that God would would pick the best possible means of communicating with us. I also believe that God would not try to rest his story on things we weren’t ready to know, or able to find credible at the time. He’d give it to us in a form we could understand. He’d trust us to be smart enough to figure things out. He’d also emphasize faith, so the conflict between what was on the bible’s pages and what we found out would not turn into a logical test that many would be forced to decide didn’t go in religion’s favor.

Personally, I’ve been familiar with science for long enough to know how well it all fits together. It makes sense. It works together. One thing confirms another.

You know why Fundamentalism came about? Because folks were confronted with this competing world view, and they felt they had to build the religion back up from a rational basis. The bible would be taken to be absolute truth, and everything would be built up logically from its verses.

The trouble with that is that I don’t believe the bible was written with that in mind, or by people who thought in those terms. I had an epiphany of sorts in a class about the old testament. They were talking about the splitting of the Red Sea, and I posed the old thing about the name meaning something like “reed sea”. He then went on to say that a theory was that the word actually meant something different, like chaos waters, and then spoke at length about what that would mean to a Near Eastern culture of the time period in question.

And suddenly, I realized that both sides were wrong, in their own way. On one side, you’d have the people thinking of a literal red sea split, and that everything had to be done exactly like that in real life, or else the bible would be false. On the other side, you have people trying to explain these events in terms of volcanic eruptions and tsunamis that were later re-imagined into these kinds of events.

But as the teacher explained what the waters of chaos meant in ancient terms, that they were the basic material of creation, mastery of which demonstrated God’s power and authority, it suddenly occurred to me that this was the real message that the bible was meant to pass on from this, and whether there was ever anything odd done with red sea, whether it was anything to do with the red sea, whether God actually came down and separated the water just like that, or whether some people, long ago, fled across a seabed that had been revealed by a tsunami drawing back the water, only to have their pursuers caught in the wave that struck afterwards, it all meant one thing, one reconciled meaning for those people involved: God was the master of our cosmos.

After that, I could see the path forward for my faith. I could reconcile what I knew from science to be true, with the existence of God. I could also look at the bible in way that allowed me to value it for its spirit, not devalue it as an archaic document disproven over time. If Genesis was merely the ancients talking about creation, and God’s attitudes towards it, I wasn’t going to balk at knowing about the deep time of geology and evolution, because we weren’t talking documentary fact here, we were talking about what an Ancient Near Eastern’s inspired view of God, as patient craftsman and careful builder, of compassionate creator meant, not the various tricks and interpretations we could make so we could believe these passages to be literal truth in the face of all the evidence.

I can take and leave miracles, believe they are possible, without having to believe that one thing or another MUST be miraculous.

I don’t have to feel conflicted about being both scientifically and religiously minded. You might not value that, but you never had the years I had of learning all the things that worked together to make the scientific viewpoint worked, stuff that couldn’t just be disregarded. You can prove deep time geology, with ancient history behind that. You can prove evolution, as well as you can, with genetics and fossil evidence. You can prove the long extent of history.

But is religion about proving things, or is it about reaching out past the surface of things, of people, of behavior, of the natural world around as, and seeing the great, unifying spirit behind all that, the great, unifying truths of our lives in God’s creation?

I choose to be a person of faith. That faith comes to different conclusions than yours, but I suppose we have freedom of religion because the basic fact is, coming to those different conclusions is no new thing for either humanity or Americans, especially from our colonial days. You can stick to your faith, I will stick to mine, and nobody has to try and win the kinds of fights that I see in the rest of the world, that nobody really actually wins.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 20, 2013 11:11 AM
Comment #364644

Faith in a Creator comes to folks in different and varied ways and sometimes not at all. I challenge no ones religious faith and will defend my own Christian faith against heresy.

Mr. Daugherty speaks mostly about the Old Testament which is open to much interpretation and understanding as much of it contains no written historical record.

The New Testament, though it too is open to varied interpretation and understanding, is mostly a written record, with much of it remaining in existence even today. We have countless first-person eye-witness testimony as to the life and times of Christ; the words He spoke and the actions He took.

I object to anyone calling the New Testament an evolving collection of documents just as I object to anyone calling our Constitution an evolving document. We know what both Christ and our Founders thought and wrote and what their contemporaries understood about those words and thoughts.

As a conservative I believe in the original meaning of both the New Testament and Constitution. The New Testament is fundamentally a book which confirms God’s love for all of us and His willingness to sacrifice His Son for the redemption of our sins which we are woefully incapable of doing for ourselves.

The Constitution is fundamentally a document that attempts to establish a government that serves its citizens and ensures their liberty and freedom by recognizing certain unalienable rights.

I neither hate or despise Democrats and Liberals or non-Christians or atheists…I simply believe they are mistaken.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 20, 2013 5:07 PM
Comment #364646

Stephen: BZA-
What’s your alternative? Wait until God rings in the rapture, sets things like some people want?

What’s the endgame, or is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict supposed to be another endless war which has to be forever fought in order to be not lost?

Easy answers..

What’s the alternative? I’ll tell you and have told you…Protect the people of Israel by not giving them closer proximity to Tel Aviv. Why would they give in to them? To be “politically correct”?

I realize this is really really hard for you to understand but since the beginning of time there have been empires and leaders that thrive on death and destruction as an answer to anyone that doesn’t buy in to what they are doing. In which case one should NEVER give in to demands from such people. Palestinians are RIFE with Islamic extremists and the numerous public speeches they have given express their desire to wipe out Israel. Again, I ask you why would any sane person take that chance? No sane person would. Are you sane?

Finally, do a little research on the quality of life of Arabs living in Tel Aviv. They hold positions in higher courts there. They live in VERY nice neighborhoods. Israel treats them as their own. Would Jews receive that same treatment in Arab countries? Of course not. Did Obama or any of you Liberals mention this? Of course not. Were most of you even aware of this? Of course not. Instead you took the side of militant Palestinians and were more interested in appeasing them. Painting Israel as “unfair” of “unreasonable” just shows how delusional liberals have become.

Posted by: BZA at April 20, 2013 5:30 PM
Comment #364660

BZA-
So, what precisely are you talking about happening here, hmm?

By the way, for years before the formation of Israel, Jews worshipped and lived openly within the Islamic world, as did Christians. Much of what’s happened to strain and shatter that tolerance has to do with a number of things that colonial powers did, including what happened with Palestine.

Your problem here is that you’re not well informed enough to realize that these aren’t errant parts of Israel, they are parts of Jordan and Egypt. And if Israel can annex them, what besides America’s military might is between Israel, and some other power annexing it?

You simply think people will lie down for something like that. What gives you that idea? You think of yourself as more knowledgeable, but here you are truly naïve.

Besides, If they agreed to it, and they turn around and renege on the agreement, it’s no longer in the grey area of an occupied territory trying to free itself. It’s one sovereign nation attacking another. There are ramifications for that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 21, 2013 8:08 PM
Comment #364661

Some interesting information about the NRA from Blacks.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&feature=relmfu&v=jKMi023Ofro&rl=yes

Posted by: George at April 21, 2013 8:47 PM
Comment #364674

George-
I read a wikipedia article about them that made no mention, but of course there could be all kinds of reasons for that.

So, I then went to the Horses mouth, and still got nothing about that.

The NRA may have had some dealings with the freed blacks of that time, but both wikipedia and the NRA agree that the main purpose of the organization, originally, was to improve the aim of the American soldiers, who had one hit typically for every thousand rounds fired.

This new effort at revisionist history seems like an attempt at political blackmail, both to guilt blacks into opposing gun control, and to back off whites who didn’t want to be seen as racist.

Even if true, this is the first I’ve heard of this particular argument, which is strange, to say the least, if it’s a foundational element of the organization.

The simpler explanation seems to be the best, but it’s not one you can guilt politically correct liberals into opposing gun control with.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 22, 2013 5:06 PM
Comment #364728

Stephen: “The simpler explanation seems to be the best, but it’s not one you can guilt politically correct liberals into opposing gun control with.”

Even if it were 100% true it would still end up being like today’s modern Republican Party. You know, the party that freed the slaves 150 years ago? Stop there, of course. Let’s not talk about the last 50 years of racism. Let’s just say the Democrats were all in the Klan. The Southern Strategy never happened. Blacks vote for Democrats because they’re stupid and they don’t know better because the entire Democratic Party agenda is a conspiracy to keep them poor and uneducated for their voting block. Make sense, right? You don’t need a simpler explanation.

The NRA could have single handedly won us World War I and II for all I care. All that matters now is that in the last two decades or so NRA has become a deplorable organization of enormous influence and power which has only one agenda: To convince people that the 2nd amendment is the right for anyone to own any gun, anywhere, at any time. This whole idea runs counter to even Justice Scalia on the SCOTUS but don’t tell conservatives. That might take away one of their “Democrat gun grabber” memes.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 23, 2013 8:14 AM
Comment #364729

A very interesting article on gun control and the black connection from the freedman problem in the South through the Black Panthers. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

Posted by: Rich at April 23, 2013 9:21 AM
Comment #364937
Adam we know Adrienne was hoping he was a right wing extremist.

No, actually I KNEW that these bombers were going to be rightwing extremists no matter what. Whether they ended up being your typical fanatical conservative-extremist religious Muslim nutcases, or your typically fanatical Tea Party-Christian Religious-Conspiracy Militia-Patriot Movement conservative-extremist nutcases.
And as it turns out, the Tsarnev Bros. combined their Muslim extremism WITH lots of rightwing conspiracy nuttiness.
The Tsarnev Bros. and their entire family were/are huge fans of Alex Jones and his Infowars endless loads-o-crap anti-government conspiracies.
The Associated Press reported on this a few days ago.
Alex Jones is now naturally trying to distance himself from this uncomfortable truth: Alex Jones Downplays Connection To “Boston Bomber”
At the same time and as usual, Jones is busy whipping up the crazy with his typical tales of conspiracy horsesh*t by claiming that the Boston Marathon attack had to have been planned and executed by the US government.

Rhinehold:

As for McVeigh, I’m not sure how many times to explain it to you that a) McVeigh as a lone wolf terrorist who got a couple of people to assist him, not part of a group who was planning to do these things as an attempt to overthrow the government.

It doesn’t matter how many times you keep repeating this — it’s always completely wrong. McVeigh, Nichols and their friends were indeed Anti-government-Conspiracy-Militia-Patriot Movement rightwing nutjobs.

From McVeigh’s Wikipedia page:

McVeigh’s anti-government rhetoric became more radical. He began to sell ATF hats riddled with bullet holes and a flare gun, which, he said, could shoot down an “ATF helicopter.” He produced videos detailing the government’s actions at Waco and handed out pamphlets with titles like “U.S. Government Initiates Open Warfare Against American People” and “Waco Shootout Evokes Memory of Warsaw ‘43.” He began changing his answering machine greeting every couple of weeks to various quotes by Patrick Henry such as “Give me liberty or give me death.” He began experimenting with pipe bombs and other small explosive devices for the first time. The government also imposed new firearms restrictions in 1994 that McVeigh believed threatened his livelihood.

McVeigh dissociated himself from his boyhood friend, Steve Hodge, by sending a 23-page farewell letter to him. He proclaimed his devotion to the United States Declaration of Independence, explaining in detail what each sentence meant to him. McVeigh declared that:

Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly.

It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I will. And I will because not only did I swear to, but I believe in what it stands for in every bit of my heart, soul and being.
I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle, Steve. I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend.

McVeigh felt the need to personally reconnoiter sites of rumored conspiracies. He visited Area 51 in order to defy government restrictions on photography and went to Gulfport, Mississippi to determine the veracity of rumors about United Nations operations. These turned out to be false; the Russian vehicles on the site were being configured for use in U.N.-sponsored humanitarian aid efforts. Around this time, McVeigh and Nichols also began making bulk purchases of ammonium nitrate, an agricultural fertilizer, for resale to survivalists, since rumors were circulating that the government was preparing to ban it.

Plan against federal building or individuals

McVeigh told Fortier of his plans to blow up a federal building, but Fortier declined to participate. Fortier also told his wife about the plans.[35] McVeigh composed two letters to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the first titled “Constitutional Defenders” and the second “ATF Read.” He denounced government officials as “fascist tyrants” and “storm troopers” and warned:

ATF, all you tyrannical people will swing in the wind one day for your treasonous actions against the Constitution of the United States. Remember the Nuremberg War Trials.[2]

McVeigh also wrote a letter of recruitment to a customer named Steve Colbern:

A man with nothing left to lose is a very dangerous man and his energy/anger can be focused toward a common/righteous goal. What I’m asking you to do, then, is sit back and be honest with yourself. Do you have kids/wife? Would you back out at the last minute to care for the family? Are you interested in keeping your firearms for their current/future monetary value, or would you drag that ‘06 through rock, swamp and cactus…to get off the needed shot? In short, I’m not looking for talkers, I’m looking for fighters…And if you are a fed, think twice. Think twice about the Constitution you are supposedly enforcing (isn’t “enforcing freedom” an oxymoron?) and think twice about catching us with our guard down – you will lose just like Degan [Bill Degan was the U.S. Marshal killed at Ruby Ridge] – and your family will lose.

McVeigh began announcing that he had progressed from the “propaganda” phase to the “action” phase. He wrote to his Michigan friend Gwenda Strider, “I have certain other ‘militant’ talents that are in short supply and greatly demanded.”

Posted by: Adrienne at April 26, 2013 1:35 AM
Comment #364993

Adrienne, all you have done is prove my point. As much as McVeigh wanted to get accepted by the ‘militia groups’, he was seen by them as a nutcase and spurned. He was angry about something and chose to take matters into his own hands, he was not part of a large conspiracy by ‘right wing’ groups. He was rebuked by his friends and was able to only convince 3 other people to assist him.

You’re understanding of what makes someone ‘right-wing’ and what makes them ‘left-wing’ when it comes to terrorism is somewhat lacking…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism

Right-wing terrorism draws its inspiration from a variety of ideologies and beliefs, including neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, racism and opposition to foreigners and immigration. Incidents of this type of terrorism have been sporadic with little or no international cooperation. Their actions are generally poorly coordinated and there are few identifiable organizations. Modern right wing terrorism began to appear in western Europe in the 1980s and in eastern Europe following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc.

The objective of right-wing terrorism is the overthrow existing governments and their replacement with nationalist or fascist-oriented governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_wing_terrorism

Left-wing terrorists view the governments they oppose as authoritarian, exploitive and corrupt, and emphasize idealism, pacificism and anti-imperialism. Their ideology is heavily influenced by Marxist and other communist and socialist thought. Narodnaya Volya, a 19th century terrorist group that killed tsar Alexander II of Russia in 1881, and developed the concept of propaganda by the deed is a major influence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_terrorism

A lone wolf or lone-wolf fighter is someone who commits or prepares for, or is suspected of committing or preparing for, violent acts in support of some group, movement, or ideology, but who does so alone, outside of any command structure and without material assistance from any group.

The term “lone wolf” is used by US law enforcement agencies and the media to refer to individuals undertaking violent acts of terrorism outside a command structure.

While the lone wolf acts to advance the ideological or philosophical beliefs of an extremist group, they act on their own, without any outside command or direction. The lone wolf’s tactics and methods are conceived and directed solely on their own; in many cases, such as the tactics described by Curtis, the lone wolf never even has personal contact with the group they identify with. As such, it is considerably more difficult for counter-terrorism officials to gather intelligence on lone wolves, since they may not come into contact with routine counter-terrorist surveillance.

In the United States, lone-wolves may present a greater threat than organized groups. According to the Christian Science Monitor, “With the exception of the attacks on the World Trade Center, experts say the major terrorists attacks in the United States have been perpetrated by deranged individuals who were sympathetic to a larger cause – from Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh to the Washington area sniper John Allen Muhammad”

You will always say that any terrorist is acting as ‘right wing’ because, as I have stated before, anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100% is right wing in your eyes. The problem is that definitions are important in order to communicate effectively with others, but your partisan zeal and hatred prevent you from seeing facts as they actually are.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 27, 2013 11:29 AM
Comment #365083

I know exactly where McVeigh got his brand of crazy from — and it’s a rightwing movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_movement

Posted by: Adrienne at April 27, 2013 4:52 PM
Comment #365152

I’ll repeat:

While the lone wolf acts to advance the ideological or philosophical beliefs of an extremist group, they act on their own, without any outside command or direction. The lone wolf’s tactics and methods are conceived and directed solely on their own; in many cases, such as the tactics described by Curtis, the lone wolf never even has personal contact with the group they identify with.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 29, 2013 3:50 PM
Comment #378740

Great blog and I love what you have to say and I think I will tweet this out to my friends so they can check it out as well. I like what you have to say Pollen and Bleu | Pollen & Bleu | Rivertrees Residences | Rivertrees | coco palms pasir ris | coco palms | coco palms condo | the rise @ oxley | the rise @ oxley residences | rise @ oxley | handbags | handbags Singapore | ladies bags excellent article.

Posted by: the rise @ oxley residences at May 25, 2014 12:21 AM
Post a comment