Let’s see: conservatives ripped Bush for his stance on illegal aliens, Dubai Ports, Harriet Miers, his unwillingness to defend his policies, many of his Iraq policies, his failure to stop the pork barrel spending, and unwillingness to veto massive spending, among others. Still and all, the man had principles, and you knew what you were getting with Bush."
LOL you cannot be serious. The illegal aliens 100% I'll give you, Bush alienated the base, but PLEASE cite to any reputable post from the early stages of the Iraq War, which was clearly illegal from day 1 (as a lawyer, I'll tell you willful ignorance or recklessness are the same thing), or a call to veto his budgets. Yes, Obama's is bigger by .4 billion, but he didn't exempt "unexpected" expenditures like Iraq as bush did in his (while our troops used scrap metal as body armor but I digress)....who could have expected we would invade a country that had nothing to do with our national security! A totally unexpected budget expenditure to be sure. I clearly remember all the "tea-parties" during that time. /sorcasm
I'm not the biggest fan of Olbermann, but the guy did a SCATHING attack on Obama's retaining of the status-quo of Bush's wiretapping and torture memos policy that def. surprised me as I always assumed he was a partisan hack (he def was during the election run-up). He's no Glenn Greenwald to be sure, but PLEASE LINK to any backing of you said that took place as it was happening. Olbermann did a few nights ago, Greenwald has since day 1. Plenty of conservatives jumped the ship with the rest of the rats about Iraq once it was clear it wasn't working, very few stood up before it happened and said "regardless if this works 100% as we think it will and we're greeted as liberators, it is ILLEGAL and IMMORAL." Your post seems to implies that, please cite or correct me where I'm wrong.Comment Posted By Longhorn Jon On 10.04.2009 @ 00:41
Hah ok well its prob the vodka and the fact the rockets game is over at this point that I'm even dignifying this, but here goes:
"If we’re going to put a ‘cost’ on the words of conservatives how about liberals? Iraq was a much harder slog than it would have been if the Times hadn’t flogged Abu Ghraib (for more than a month on the front page!) which gave hope to our enemy that we would lose will. We accept that, and even the Senate Majority Leader during a shooting war saying that very war was “lost”, because we believe in free speech.
The real irony here, though, is that the left will go to great lengths to excuse the most barbaric speech within a mosque. ‘It’s your duty to kill Jews’ apprently isn’t enciting violence."
Ok so members of the media spouting objectively false statements is the same as the media exposing horrible truths in violation of our domestic laws as well as our treaty obligations? Interesting...
"Iraq was a much harder slog than it would have been if the Times hadn’t flogged Abu Ghraib" -cite?
"We accept that, and even the Senate Majority Leader during a shooting war saying that very war was “lost”, because we believe in free speech." At the time he said that, weren't like 600k Iraqis dead and a million displaced. I shudder to actually know what your def of lost is. Also, the reason the ancient Romans had a saying to the effect of "you can't win an occupation" is b/c that's been common sense for like 3k years.
"The real irony here, though, is that the left will go to great lengths to excuse the most barbaric speech within a mosque." -They have? please cite. ‘It’s your duty to kill Jews’ apprently isn’t enciting violence." -its not? Either you don't think it is or your quoting someone. Please cite.Comment Posted By Longhorn Jon On 9.04.2009 @ 22:06
"As was pointed out yesterday, Poplawski was dishonorably discharged from the Marines and had a protective order for abuse sworn out against him by a previous girlfriend. Either of those by itself is sufficient to disqualify a person from legally possessing firearms under current laws. This means that none of Poplawski’s firearms were legal to begin with. Even Bush would have taken the firearms away from Poplawski. That is the objective truth."
"And ALL the evidence points to the Beatles’ song “Helter Skelter” being a FACTOR in Charles Manson’s murders. But we don’t go around blaming the Beatles for the actions of someone who was clearly insane."
-gibberish. Did The Beatles, a music band, hold themselves out as qualified arbiters of who or who not should be killed by crazy cults? Do Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush, whoever else hold themselves out as political commentators to be taken seriously, spouting "truths" in the form of "OBAMA IS COMING FOR YOUR GUNS"? You think that wasnt a TINY false equivocation on your part when a crazy person latches on to one thing and not the other? Either The Beatles were really badmouthing the ppl at Tate Ranch or your response is a false analogy. Please tell me where I'm wrong. Helter Skelter was about a carnival ride Manson interpreted to be about an apocalyptic race war, were LaPierre, Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. comments about Obama's agenda so laughably misinterpreted? The point is, when you hold yourself out there as a "serious political commentator" you have a degree of responsibility that they all 100% betrayed by pursuing fear-mongering over utter BS to improve ratings. They are somewhat responsible when crazies latch onto that, the Beatles are not.
If that's your no. 1 analogy for this, then this argument is already over.Comment Posted By Longhorn Jon On 9.04.2009 @ 21:55
A recent mailing from the president of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, to its members says that Barack Obama wants to ban the possession of handguns, and that "never in NRA's history have we faced a presidential candidate — and hundreds of candidates running for other offices — with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms."
So, either one of the most influential lobbying groups in US history is lying or or there's some legislation down the pike that I, a fpr,er Constitutional lawyer (before, admittedly, I sold out to the "man" to pay off my many student loans), am totally unaware of, which is it? I really shouldn't be indulging you in this change of subject considering Obama or his staff's stance on gun control NEVER CAME UP until I called you out on your BS regarding the motivation behind this massacre in Pittsburgh.Comment Posted By Longhorn Jon On 6.04.2009 @ 22:40
If you believed you had a square rationalization for believing in Obama's "plans" to restrict gun ownership, you would have mentioned it way earlier and not until just recently when the hollowness of your argument forced you to equivocate.
Look, I was totally wrong to say, "from this guy who had this propaganda as his MOTIVATION for his craziness." I meant a factor, as my many later posts made clear. I have no blog of my own and write in steam of consciousness, so this was an overstatement on my part. Will YOU admit the same with regards to you saying that, ’m sorry, but when someone like Oliver Willis - already suffering from a lack of logic and an overabundance of stupidity - tells us flat out with no qualifiers whatsoever that the shooter in Pittsburgh carried out his mass murder of police officers because “conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America” forced him “over the edge,” I can’t sit by allow that kind of contemptible calumny go by without some kind of comment." without quoting the NEXT FREAKIN SENTENCE that put it in context just to make a political point? Either you ignored it out of some near-sighted vision issue which you should see an optometrist for or you did so to further an argument you WISHED the "left" would make so you can shoot it down.Comment Posted By Longhorn Jon On 6.04.2009 @ 22:28
Unlike you, I don't have to create arguments I wish the "right" would make to shoot them down. So Obama has some ppl who would prefer some gun-control policies in his employment? SO WHAT? Are they the ones setting the policy? Is there any legislation as-such down the pipe? As I've begged you before to no avail, PLEASE CITE. Otherwise, quit moving the goalposts and have some common sense.
No, I don't think those espousing the "Obama wants to take all our guns" meme have blood on their hands (and anyone who says as much I disagree with), I just think they need to take a good fu**in look in the mirror and think about consquences before spreading BS they know to be false next time.
The killing in Pittsburgh was the result of right-wingers spreading disinformation. This guy, already disturbed, was apparently helped over the edge by conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America.
I def disagree with teh first statement in a vacuum. Anyone who says as much, I also disagree with. The NEXT FREAKIN SENTENCE which you simply must have forgotten to paste as well puts in a little more context, no?
"A reporter writes that the guy talked about Obama taking his guns and you automatically (knee jerk) leap to the conclusion that this is why he killed the policemen and not because he wanted to die and wanted the police to kill him?"Comment Posted By Longhorn Jon On 6.04.2009 @ 15:44
3 for 3 with the strawmen. I'm going to get Guiness on the phone.
“You have no clue what set that guy off” vs.
This guy, already disturbed, was apparently helped over the edge by conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America.”
"You cannot make a flat, declarative determination about what set the guy off. That is ridiculous on its face." -When did Willis do this? please cite.
This is getting ridiculous. Is this a parody site that I'm just not getting? This is about as textbook a strawman argument as there is. I pointed it out and you did it AGAIN minutes later. NO ONE is saying that the 100% false hysteria created about Obama taking ppl's guns made him do what he did. He was clearly nuts before Obama was even elected. ALL the evidence points to the hyped, false hysteria being a FACTOR though. That's the point we've been making that you seen totally unable to grasp. Your arms must be extremely sore from moving these goalposts.
"The killing in Pittsburgh was the result of right-wingers spreading disinformation."
You're right - my bad. No flat declarative statement there. Full of weasel words, no?
You are incorrect. Willis is, in fact saying "the 100% false hysteria created about Obama taking ppl's guns made him do what he did." And can we please differentiate between those who point out that there are several Obama Justice Department appointees with a record of advocating very strict controls on guns? No, not confiscating them. But with typical leftist obfuscation, you are making a serious argument ridiculous by pointing to the extremists rather than the vast majority who are troubled by such appointments. This is not conspiracy mongering - not when the statements are on the record.
And when you say "ALL THE EVIDENCE" are you or are you not talking about press reports? What kind of "evidence" is that? A reporter writes that the guy talked about Obama taking his guns and you automatically (knee jerk) leap to the conclusion that this is why he killed the policemen and not because he wanted to die and wanted the police to kill him?
Enough. I can't argue with a bozo who thinks he's a licensed psychiatrist.
ed.Comment Posted By Longhorn Jon On 6.04.2009 @ 15:16
"He was really into politics and really into the First and Second amendment. One thing he feared was he feared the gun ban because he thought that was going to take away peoples' right to defend themselves. He never spoke of going out to murder or to kill," said Edward Perkovic, who described himself as Mr. Poplawski's lifelong best friend.
Found in 30 seconds, with "teh google."
"You have no clue what set that guy off" vs.
This guy, already disturbed, was apparently helped over the edge by conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America.”
Can you say strawman?
PS: childish name calling within 3 lines and 5 minutes of my comment, is it weird I feel validated?
Can you say, "I don't know what a strawman is but it sure makes me sound like I'm intelligent?" I set up no strawman. You are taking upon yourself the role of psychiatrist and I am simply calling you and Willis idiots for doing so.
You cannot make a flat, declarative determination about what set the guy off. That is ridiculous on its face. You are taking the psychological analysis by a reporter and the guy's best friend - neither professionally trained - of a very disturbed individual for God's sake! It's laughable.
Stick with your banal rants against conservatives and leave psychiatry to the professionals please.
ed.Comment Posted By Longhorn Jon On 6.04.2009 @ 14:36
"By Willis’ reasoning, what prompted someone like Phil Spector to [allegedly] kill the young woman in his mansion? He had a long history with guns and he surely doesn’t strike me a conservative. How about the HuffPo writer who killed her lover and then took her own life? Liberals all."
Sigh. Was that really his reasoning? Really?
"The shooting in Oakland was horrible, but the guy who did it was just a bad guy. The killing in Pittsburgh was the result of right-wingers spreading disinformation. This guy, already disturbed, was apparently helped over the edge by conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America."
Again, ALL your doing is citing non-conservatives who did bad stuff. What in Jeebus' name is your point? Did you read this before pushing post? The whole thesis behind what he wrote is that the paranoid "Obama is taking our guns" meme was eaten up like a Grand-Slam Breakfeast from this guy who had this propoganda as his MOTIVATION for his craziness.
Kay, either cite to wear Spector or the Huffpo blogger were EGGED ON in their craziness by objectivelly false fears circulating in the liberal community, or go to a Logic 101 class in one of those brainwashing liberal universities.
"Motivation for his craziness?" Where's your evidence? Show me the psyche reports not some impression of a reporter. Jesus Christ where do you people get your fucking arrogance? You have no clue what set that guy off - something you would know if you had bother to read what I wrote.
ed.Comment Posted By Longhorn Jon On 6.04.2009 @ 14:22
Pages (1) :