Making a truly odious comparison, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman claimed parallels between the behavior of anti-Obama protestors (who have been quite peaceful) to that of "extreme right-wing settlers" in Israel before the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Friedman warned that "criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination." But where was this concern for the presidency when the left worked non-stop to delegitimize George W. Bush?
From Wednesday's column, "Where Did 'We' Go?"
I hate to write about this, but I have actually been to this play before and it is really disturbing.
I was in Israel interviewing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin just before he was assassinated in 1995. We had a beer in his office. He needed one. I remember the ugly mood in Israel then -- a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish settler as a license to kill Rabin -- he must have heard, "God will be on your side" -- and so he did.
Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.
What kind of madness is it that someone would create a poll on Facebook asking respondents, "Should Obama be killed?" The choices were: "No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care." The Secret Service is now investigating. I hope they put the jerk in jail and throw away the key because this is exactly what was being done to Rabin.
Friedman is either being hypocritical or took a nap for the eight years of the Bush administration, which was a non-stop assault on Bush's legitimacy from the left. As Victor Davis Hanson reminded us:
The Left is now furious that, as the new establishment, the rules of discourse are not more polite. But from 2002-8, they (Who are "they"? Try everyone from Al Gore to John Glenn to Robert Byrd to Sen. Durbin), employed every Nazi/brown shirt slur they could conjure up. NPR's folksy old Garrison Keillor was indistinguishable from mean-spirited Michael Moore in that regard.
The New York Times gave a discount for a disgusting "General Betray Us" ad. The Democratic Party head Howard Dean flatly said he "hated" Republicans. Hilary Clinton all but called Gen. Petraeus a liar in a congressional hearing. The New Republic ran an essay on hating George Bush (not opposing, not disliking, but "hating" the President). Alfred Knopf published a novel about killing Bush. A Guardian op-ed dreamed of Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth coming back to kill Bush. And on and on.
But Friedman barely acknowledged any kind of attacks on Bush by the left.
Sometimes I wonder whether George H.W. Bush, president "41," will be remembered as our last "legitimate" president. The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater "scandal." George W. Bush was elected under a cloud because of the Florida voting mess, and his critics on the left never let him forget it.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Even though George W. Bush
September 30, 2009 - 13:34 ET by nolotrippenEven though George W. Bush was hardly a conservative, he was a R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N. Friedman and his ilk hate anyone outside their own party mindset (think of the very liberal Richard Nixon who should have made the Democrats swoon...but he wasn't in their party).
Race, gender, sex, accomplishment, need -- they all are subservient to party (hmm, sounds facist to me).
And yes, to put it bluntly, anyone not in Friedman's party is considered less than human.
nolotrippen
September 30, 2009 - 13:46 ET by MrShyExactly. That tells you just how far-left the "moderate/normal" culture of the left is. They reviled this man the moment he was smiling in debates in 2000, I think, and the guy is a soft Republican at worst.
Had 9/11 not happened -- the single worst attack and declaration of war on this country ever -- even THAT part of him that seemed more traditionally Republican (the dumb "war-mongering" tag) would not have existed -- and STILL, I think they would have hated him with a zestful passion until they could kick him out in 2004 or 2008. Un. Effing. Real.
Yes, they should put the
September 30, 2009 - 13:35 ET by black47211Yes, they should put the person or persons in jail responsible for that Facebook poll. Agreed.
But that's about all the agreement you'll get from me, Mr. Friedman. Your words are designed to foment hatred and paranoia, and after adding you to the ever-growing list of leftists who seem to have found a new talking point, ("Will right wingers kill Obama?" Next on MSNBC!), I will only walk away and shaking my head in disbelief. Do I need to send you photos from Bush protests calling for his death, blatantly and openly?
http://www.pelicanmarsh68.blogspot.com
Citizen Commentators Unite!
Really? Jail?
September 30, 2009 - 14:08 ET by bre1227I don't know isn't polling if someone should be killed different than making a direct threat on the president's life (which would be a crime). After all, the question wasn't "Should I kill the president?"
Agreed though that it was a stupid and juvenile thing to do.
I hope they catch the facebook poll maker too
September 30, 2009 - 14:30 ET by delmarI'll bet dollars to doughnuts that it was an agent provocateur from the left that did it.
Friedman has always
September 30, 2009 - 13:35 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonBeen a fool of the highest magnitude.
It's good to see some that some people truly are too stupid to learn from their past mistakes.
http://gjresult.com
O V E R R A T E D clap/clap-clap/clap/clap O V E R R A T E D...
September 30, 2009 - 22:06 ET by danybhoyFriedman is clearly the most overrated media figure in America. Way too many listen way too closely when he speaks on an issue. He is just another reason the NYSlimes is going under.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
Agree on Friedman, willis
October 2, 2009 - 14:39 ET by 007memoAgree on Friedman, willis.
Friedman is famous for his urging, "Give Bush just 6 more months" to stabilize Iraq. He made that statement every 6 months for several years.
His predictions on the Iraq War were almost as pathetically wrong as Bill Kristol's.
Every now and then he makes a decent point on an economic issue, though.
Criticism from the far right
September 30, 2009 - 13:41 ET by MrShy"Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed as recently as January 19th, 2009, the last day that practically every liberal was ranting and raving for Bush's head on a platter (or to see him and Cheney dragged in chains, or.... or.....) "
-- Thomas "The Partisan & Hypocritical Moron" Friedman
"Bogus Whitewater scandal"?
September 30, 2009 - 13:57 ET by Gary HallGreat segue on the hypocracy, Clay.
Now. The Whitewater scandal was not bogus. Many people's lives were destroyed in that scam. Some of them were simply looking for a small little plot to live out their retirement dreams on - and they lost all. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were a part of the scandal. Period.
Neither were the numerous other scandals in and around Bill Clinton and the Clinton administration. True, indictments can be difficult to come by, but at least they got plenty of his close friends and associates convicted, including some that were in the oval office all the time:
DOJ - JAMES RIADY PLEADS GUILTY WILL PAY LARGEST FINE IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE HISTORY FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL ELECTION LAW
Clinton - Riady - Huang - what bunch of crooks!
And.. the MSM kept all the news out of America's living rooms, and will never reflect back on the crimes, nor will they ever ask Bill Clinton or any of his associates to reflect on his major scandals. It's all locked away in the media's Democrat lock box (the only lock box they every protected).
(;~/ gary
Meanwhile overlooking
September 30, 2009 - 14:01 ET by 10ksnookerWhat the Oba-Mao and his twin enforcers, SEIU and ACORN mean to America, freedom and liberty ... My guess is they don't care.
Bad news -- The elites are the first to be disposed of, ask Hugo Chavez how that works out.
Need it be said that the
September 30, 2009 - 14:18 ET by jdhawkNeed it be said that the Israeli right was . . . wait for it . . . right!
Although it was absolutely wrong to have assignated Rabin, the Israeli right was dead on in their assessment of the land for peace policy. It has been an utter disaster. How many Israelis have been murdered, maimed, kidnapped, tortured and killed since then? How many Isrealis live in fear every single minute of their lives since that policy was put in place and largely continues to this day?
Meanwhile, bambi, the first stupid liberal, has withdrawn our anti missile defense systems from Europe AFTER he knew of the 2d secret Iranian nuclear processing plant. He flys off to Copenhagen to close the deal on having the Olympics in his home town while leaving questions about Afghanistan hanging and barely giving the on ground commander the time of day. Every day, this "president" spends his time on the "campaign trail" instead of leading. Everyday, he proposes and campaigns for more socialist policies that the American people reject.
Friedman's...
September 30, 2009 - 14:30 ET by PrairieSkyan ass...Equating those of us on the right that dare to object to Obama to those nutcases that assassinated Rabin is obscene, and Friedman knows it...he's just too immersed in his own leftist BS to care.
The only one that is deligitimizing Obama, is Obama himself through his lies, incompetency and raging ineptitude.
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
Am I missing something?
September 30, 2009 - 14:31 ET by BKeyserI consider myself pretty "up" on current events. Some of you may have seen me hanging out here and I also frequent Drudge, HotAir, RedState, and BigGovernment. All of these sites offer commentary (except Drudge, which simply provides links) but also link the actual subject matter- case in point, Friedman's NYT column.
So, he blathers on about the assassination of Rabin in 1995 and ties that into...what, exactly? A stupid Facebook poll? I'll give you even odds the poll was posted by some college lib trying to be funny and cause a ruckus. Where's the evidence? Where's the violence- I mean outside of Pittsburgh? We've heard about increased threats on the President, but who's actually confirmed that? To my knowledge, the initial claim was made by a former Secret Service Agent. So again... evidence? Actual violence- outside of that initiated by SEIU thugs?
Then he concludes the article by once-again, for the million-billionth time, concluding that Bush was fraudulently elected. (How, by the way, is this different than the birthers? Isn't he a "chad-er"?)
As a staunch conservative, I have no interest in seeing President Obama harmed in any way other than politcially. I disagree with his policies, and disagree with his political philosophy. That in no way makes me a crazed nut-job bent on assassinating Obama- even if "Death of a President" was being released today instead of in 2006.
This concludes my rant. I apologize for it's length.
Well Said!
September 30, 2009 - 14:49 ET by buddycWell Said!
A well stated policy position
September 30, 2009 - 15:59 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnsonhardly qualifies as a "rant".
For 'rants' we tune into the view. For really retarded points of view, we turn up the volume on the TV.
http://gjresult.com
Are we supposed to be impressed because you act rational?
September 30, 2009 - 23:24 ET by JWFYou oppose Obama. You are a racist and a hater and a divider and somthing is wrong with you. You prolly kill kittens and collect their souls in a mason jar you store under your bed.
Don't act all rational and level headed. We know you republithugs don't worship Obama. Ha!
Pay for my health care! Do it! Do it now! Pay for my mortgage. Pay me for not working! Pay for my education! Pay for my retirement! Pay for my food and transportation! Pay for my internet connection and computer so I can play games all day and post on DKos at night!
I is done. Mommy, how do you turn this thing off. No mom, I won't look for a job tomorrow.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
"Environments" do not cause
September 30, 2009 - 14:39 ET by Tenebrous"Environments" do not cause murder, Mr. Friedman.
Rallies do not cause murder.
Protests do not cause murder.
What causes murder is one person deciding to do something.
Or doesn't logic apply outside of this narrow window of this current moment? Think about Herbert Hoover. The nation slid into the worst depression in history under his watch and he wasn't assassinated.What sort of "culture" caused Hinkley to try to assassinate Reagan?
Last legitmate president? What about JFK's election and the corruption of the Chicago machine back then? What about Harrison, who was elected by the Electorial college? Your ignorance of American history is laughable. And there are even more controversial elections than those: http://www.fairvote....
Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice, which involved not only Whitewater (in which at least two people went to jail), but also Filegate, people who couldn't get security clearances being hired for security positions, and so on. Again, your ignorance of American history is laughable.
To write for the New York Times you must be liberal, have selective amnesia, and not know how to operate a search engine.
-----
Random-jumbled-thoughts.blogspot.com
I love how Thomas Fraudman
September 30, 2009 - 14:42 ET by fitzfongI love how Thomas Fraudman frames Whitewater. By putting quotes around "scandal", he's clearly implying that it was not, in fact, a scandal...yet he offers no evidence supporting his pathetic assertion.
My sense is that he's simply embittered because most Americans have gotten wise to the "Global Warming" (quotes intentional) scam that he's been peddling.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
As I recall were there not
September 30, 2009 - 14:48 ET by buddycAs I recall were there not about 20 people convicted of crimes relating to Whitewater?
According to Tom Friedman,
September 30, 2009 - 15:03 ET by fitzfongAccording to Tom Friedman, they weren't people...they were "people".
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
FITZY...
September 30, 2009 - 22:12 ET by danybhoySpot on, it is not what he says, it is how he says it. Friedman is somebody who really have to listen to carefully to understand what he really means.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
Let me make it very clear,
September 30, 2009 - 14:46 ET by buddycLet me make it very clear, violence against elected officials is wrong. That said it is time that the blame for the tone of political discussion be laid at the feet of liberals and the liberal media. If any politician is harmed they are the ones to blame. They set the tone. They started the outrageous personal and over the top attacks. It didn't start with Bill Clinton, it started with Nixon in 1972 and virtually every republican president since then has been attacked in the most dispicable way. Who can forget the claims by democrat politicians now in positions of authority who claimed Reagan refused to fund aids research because he wanted gays dead or that Reagan the CIA purposefully addicted ghetto blacks to crack or the White family being paraded around in the media as evidence that Reagan wanted aids victims dead and didn't care about them.
They set the tone. They can change it. Their continued attacks on Bush, Palin and every other Republican of importance, past and present, indicate they are very happy with the tone, so long as it is aimed a Republicans.
Wow. First the liberals
September 30, 2009 - 14:52 ET by samhermanmdWow.
First the liberals tried the 'racist' label and poll after poll found the public dismissed that notion. After that, we see so many instances of Godwin's Law that the exception is now the rule.
The deeper that liberal manure heap grows, the tougher it will be to shovel it all away in time for the next elections. They must really be worried about 2010.
Steele on Friedman
September 30, 2009 - 14:55 ET by slickwillie2001A quick response from Michael Steele:
"Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman a 'nut job' on Thursday for suggesting that current fury in among the conservative grassroots is creating the 'same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the [former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin assassination.'”
Steele: Tom Friedman "A Nut Job": http://www.politico.com
Steele has been a little shaky now and then, but I think he's getting his sea legs.
Why no mention of the radical Left?.
September 30, 2009 - 14:56 ET by CobraManIf Friedman want's to play the equivalency game and link political opposition to violence, then why does he omit the most pertinent examples of American political violence that occurred in the 60's and 70's?
For over ten years the liberal left claimed that the government was controlled by a bunch of war mongers, that our military was guilty of baby killings, and that the Republicans especially were to blame. During that time, the radical left formed revolutionary groups, committed crimes including murder, planted bombs in public areas, and made repeated calls for the violent overthrow of the US Government.
NONE of this was mentioned by Friedman. The best equivalency he could come up with was an assignation that occurred in another country, under a different political system.
Come on, Friedman. If you want to link American violence potential with American politics, than use actual American examples. Don't avoid those examples simply because they were perpetrated by the "wrong" side of the political spectrum.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Speaking of comparisons
September 30, 2009 - 15:08 ET by sic721Obama's heading to Copenhagen tomorrow.
IIRC, wasn't there another world leader, an Austrian-born former paper-hanger who was really involved and pushed for the Olympics to be held in his country back in 1936?
sic721
September 30, 2009 - 15:14 ET by MrShyI really start to wonder if this was planned way back, when they were peddling this fraud in the primaries.... If we can get our puppet into the White House, we can fill our coffers with money to REALLY ramp up our agenda/socialist plot.
Whitewater? Facebook? Seriously?
September 30, 2009 - 15:13 ET by StarAZOr even Rabin, for that matter? Is that what the hot stuff is today? Keillor and Friedman are just girl fighting today. No offense, women!
You just describe President Bush!
September 30, 2009 - 15:50 ET by CobraMan"They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They
created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted
death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all."
You just described President Bush! That's just how the left treated him for 8 years, and counting.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
And that's just one more
September 30, 2009 - 18:49 ET by ckc1227And that's just one more reason why Thomas Friedman is a fraud.
By the way, Friedman, if history is any guide, it will most likely be a Democrat responsible should any harm come to Obama.
the Dems *NEED* and want an assassination attempt
September 30, 2009 - 16:33 ET by UndercoverConservativethey want it, they NEED it to force their policies into play. Look into the Media demonizing and already planting the "if this happens here's who's responsible" seeds. An attempt or successful martyrdom allows the sympathy for Health Care takeover, it allows little public outcry when the "Fairness Doctrine" eliminates the "right wing hate shows". and allows another Clintonesque assault on those who disagree with government, a.k.a. the "militias" that Janet Reno hunted.
All it takes, is pushing and hating and insulting the American people until someone loses his job, freedom, and prospects due to current policies, and with nothing to lose and a big target responsible for his ruination, goes out and gives the Dems the martyrdom they want. No need for any sort of "false flag" operation that could potentially connect back to them, all they have to do is wait, and keep kicking and abusing the dog till it bites-then scream "OMG! Dangerous Breed!" (ever notice the folks that train pitbulls to be fighters are often the ones who support Dems and Obama?)
Plus it allows a complete whitewashing of criticism of all past Administration activities, creating an unassailable mythical president like Kennedy, and possibly allows for the creation of a new Camelot and family political dynasty.
All wins for the Democrats and the foreign powers who are supporting them.
WWW.GS2AC.COM. 2nd Amendment Grass Roots Action in the Bay Area, CA. We're not all "Breakfast Cereal" folks here! :)
To date
September 30, 2009 - 17:12 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonEVERY school shooting, mall shooting, athletic club shooting has been done by democrats or the children of hardcore liberals.
It never has been the Conservatives in our society that have resorted to violence to force their opinions on others.
And it has never been a plank in any Conservative platform during a campaign season.
It is always present on the democratic side, and always stated as the evil conservatives are going to use violence to get their way.
IF there is an attempt, it will be by a liberal and presented falsely by the media.
http://gjresult.com
Your source for this conclusion,willis?
September 30, 2009 - 19:45 ET by 007memoWatchoo talkin bout Willis? What's your source for these nonsensical pronouncements? :
"EVERY school shooting, mall shooting, athletic club shooting has been done by democrats or the children of hardcore liberals.
It never has been the Conservatives in our society that have resorted to violence to force their opinions on others."
That is so preposterous.
(yawn)
September 30, 2009 - 20:09 ET by Free Stinker(yawn)
yawn, just another day of wing nut claims, stink
September 30, 2009 - 22:09 ET by 007memoyawn, just another day of wing nut claims, stink.
Oh no, it's true, I know it's true, Rush, no Beck, no Hannity told me so.
Is it posible that you might
September 30, 2009 - 22:12 ET by Free StinkerIs it posible that you might try thinking for yourself someday?
→ Not a chance
September 30, 2009 - 22:19 ET by Cool ArrowHis lip is quivering, he knows Obama lied to him, but he's too much in love to break free from his abusive lover.
Stockholm Syndrome
September 30, 2009 - 22:23 ET by Free StinkerSome creepy Liberal version of Stockholm Syndrome ?
Battered wife syndrome
September 30, 2009 - 22:23 ET by RESTLESS 1It is so sad to watch. Black eyes, swollen lips, all the while, she still pleads ignorance of his lies, and declares undying devotion to her love.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Good point. Double-zero
September 30, 2009 - 22:25 ET by Free StinkerGood point.
Double-zero is certainly the wife in any relationship of his.
→ 007memo
September 30, 2009 - 22:17 ET by Cool ArrowYou're the one who, from talking points, claimed Bill Clinton did not engage in war with Iraq over WMD.
You need to learn the stealthy art of slink if you're going to be a truthless troll.
War? Right coolarrow.
October 2, 2009 - 13:52 ET by 007memoNo "war" by Clinton, as much as you want to pretend otherwise.
→ 007memo
October 2, 2009 - 13:58 ET by Cool ArrowIf Russia suddenly starts chunking ICBMs across the North Pole to your little domicile, I'll try to remember you wouldn't have called it war.
Every time an Iraqi RADAR site switched on, American jets disabled it with a few well placed rockets.
Now you may not call that "war", but those who lived through those missile strikes might beg to differ.
Please continue parading your naked ignorance around here. Sometimes you're every bit as funny as Clem Kadiddlehopper.
Still not a War, coolarrow.
October 2, 2009 - 14:09 ET by 007memoStill not a War, coolarrow.
I shot coolarrow into the air, he landed on a planet somewhere... and refuses to come down to earth.
→ Not to you
October 2, 2009 - 14:15 ET by Cool ArrowAnd it's a nice dodge, niggling over who thought what was war, but I proved to you that Clinton did indeed believe Hussein had WMD, and used lethal force against that threat.
But Clinton didn't go to war, coolarrow
October 2, 2009 - 17:55 ET by 007memoBut Clinton didn't go to war, coolarrow
And thousand of US soldiers didn't die.
And thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis didn't die either. But who thinks about them?
And Clinton didn't spend $1.5 Trillion plus on a worthless war.
N. Korea, Iran, and Pakistan were always more of a threat to our security than Iraq. Oh, and then there's Afghanistan which has sat festering while we were tied up in Iraq.
Also, on 9/10/01 our nation's greatest concern was the loose nukes in the former Soviet Union, along with the concern that Russia could slip into a dictatorship. Somehow Bush forgot about those little problems.
For years, many of the wizened elders from the Bush I Administration quietly urged GW to focus on helping the former Soviet countries in securing and then destroying those loose nukes, but that little problem went largely ignored by Bush. After all, he had that macho thing to do, get Bin Laden "dead or alive"!
We are not safer for having gone to war with Iraq.
007
October 2, 2009 - 18:15 ET by Gary HallBill Clinton - July 22, 2003, in defending Bush on the silly national discussion on WMD's, and in trying to rally the American people to get behind Bush in the effort to deliver the country of Iraq back into the hands of it's people:
This site is about media bias. It is my view that had the national media not censored the views of many, whom they hold in high esteem, from the national discussion, that the effort in Iraq to remove Saddam (the killer of 2 million people) that the support would have scared the s---t out of radical terrorists leading the terror in Iraq, and the war would not have turned so bad and tens of thousands, perhaps more, would have been saved.
(;~/ gary
Majority of Libruls behind Bush, garyhall
October 2, 2009 - 23:32 ET by 007memoThe majority of libruls were behind Bush, garyhall. Even those who thought he shouldn't have gone to war in the first place.
If you'd ever read or watched the MSM you'd have seen Libs full of hope every time something positive happened in the Iraq War, all hoping against hope that "this time" will be the turning point. But after so many years and so many dashed hopes, even the most optimistic, including Republicans and Military leaders, concluded the fight was lost.
→ Quite an accusation, 007
October 2, 2009 - 23:42 ET by Cool ArrowI'll believe what you're saying if you're talking about Democrats (but not all Dems), but you're going to have to give me some names of those "even the most optimistic" Republicans, whom you claim have concluded the fight is lost.
I'm not all that keen on the antics of Republicans over the last 6 years, but you're making a claim you're going to have to back up.
You said it, now back it up.
Don't make me find stats, coolarrow
October 3, 2009 - 01:03 ET by 007memoDon't make me find stats, coolarrow!
Actually, I can hardly believe you're not aware of the majority sentiment in this country. You're kidding me right? Here goes:
CBS Poll 10/10/05
"Democrats and Republicans find themselves on different sides of the issue. 61% of Republicans want the U.S. to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes, while 73% of Democrats want U.S. troops out as soon as possible. 62% of Independents also want U.S. troops to leave. It is noteworthy, however, that 36% of Republicans, and 45% of conservatives, would like to see U.S. troops out of Iraq."
"In addition, almost two thirds of Americans think the result of the war with Iraq wasn’t worth the loss of American life and other costs; 32% think it was."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/opinion/polls/main930772.shtml
For more up to date polling stats, as of September 2009:
Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not.
Worth it: 24% Not Worth it: 67% Unsure: 9%
See these polls for many more details:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Fear not, 000 moron, as you couldn't locate your peeper...
October 3, 2009 - 01:24 ET by R D Helm...with two hands, two pairs of tweezers (one in each hand), a flashlight, written directions, and a twenty minute head start.
As such, your actually locating "stats" that prove anything beyond the sun rising in the east and setting in the west is going to be entertaining to no end.
LOL-Knock yo-seff out.
-Dave
The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
Memo
October 3, 2009 - 01:53 ET by RESTLESS 1How the hell does this prove your point to Gary?
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
So, I take one day to go get the camper off the mountain....
October 3, 2009 - 22:27 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnsonusing "polls" as data?
I have polls that show an entirely different story from what you are trying to portray.
Did yoou prove my 40 trillion dollars claim yet? Or are you still hoping for a bolt of lightning?
http://gjresult.com
It's your $40 Trillion claim Willis
October 4, 2009 - 10:30 ET by 007memoIt's your $40 Trillion claim Willis.
I never wrote that. But I forgot, you can't read.
Yep, I know it's my data that drives you nuts.
October 4, 2009 - 20:31 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonI thought you were going to provide credible evidence that my claim might be legitimately disputable.
Other than an incessant whing sound from you, I see nothing that may have some honest dispute of my statistic.
But, I forgot, you can't think.
http://gjresult.com
Find the stats, 007memo
October 4, 2009 - 21:15 ET by CobraMan007memo, yo may not understand this, but polls are not stats, and they never have been. You shouldn't confuse the two different subjects.
Polls are assumptions based on the stats of a small selection of representative data points.
Stats, on the other hand, are conclusions based on all available data points.
Do you understand?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
LEECH!
October 17, 2009 - 02:26 ET by R D Helm-Dave
goldfinger
October 2, 2009 - 23:57 ET by MrShy"The majority of libruls were behind Bush, garyhall. Even those who thought he shouldn't have gone to war in the first place."
Hahaha....
If you'd ever read or watched the MSM you'd have seen Libs full of hope every time something positive happened in the Iraq War, all hoping against hope that "this time" will be the turning point.
HAHAHAHAHAHAA.....
But after so many years and so many dashed hopes, even the most optimistic, including Republicans and Military leaders, concluded the fight was lost.
(barf)
→ Yeah, Shy
October 3, 2009 - 00:00 ET by Cool ArrowAnd tomorrow, 007 will be all butthurt because he's all alone in the world and nobody wants to play "knight on the white horse" for him.
Cool -->
October 3, 2009 - 00:09 ET by MrShyIt's like this with Bush #2:
If Katrina didn't happen, he went into Iraq.
If he didn't go into Iraq, he went into Afghanistan.
If he didn't go into Afghanistan, 9/11 happened and what's wrong with him? And it was on his watch! (which they always say...)
If 9/11 didn't happen, he stole the 2000 election.
If he didn't steal the 2000 election, he was Bush #1's spoiled little boy.
If he wasn't Bush #1's spoiled little boy, he was a hick from Texas.
If he wasn't a hick from Texas, he mangled the English language.
If....
→ If not that
October 3, 2009 - 00:14 ET by Cool ArrowIf none of the above, Dan Rather can invent a story 007memo will believe.
cool -->
October 3, 2009 - 00:20 ET by MrShy:p
I remember my mom drinking the Kool Aid of that Dan Rather report the day it came out...
Plenty of Democrats supported Bush, garyhall.
October 3, 2009 - 00:23 ET by 007memoPlenty of Democrats supported Bush, garyhall. All Americans wanted Bush to succeed, whether they agreed with him or not.
If you'd ever read or watched the MSM, you'd have seen Libs full of hope for success in Iraq. And every time something positive happened in the Iraq War, all hoped against hope that "this time" would be the turning point. But after so many years and so many dashed hopes, even the most optimistic, including Republicans and Military leaders, concluded the fight was lost.
Bush failed in Iraq and it had nothing to do with the MSM. If he had left the war to the military, ya know, the experts, instead of the neocons in his own administration, the result would have been much different.
Military leaders like Anthony Zinni, and Gen Sinseki believed you attack with overwhelming force (you probably can't find many military leaders who don't subscribe to that exact philosophy). Rumsfield and Wolfowitz thought the job could be done with fewer troops and high tech weapons. Sounds like the civilians second guessed the military again... and screwed up royally.
From NYT, 6-12-03 Army Chief of Staff Retirement
"General Shinseki's four-year term was marked by clashes with the Pentagon's civilian leadership over weapons systems and troop strength, and he did not mention Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in his parting remarks." Now why did he leave out Rumsfield?
"General Shinseki also stood resolutely with former Army Secretary Thomas E. White, who was forced into retirement earlier this year by Mr. Rumsfeld. ''When they call the roll of principled, loyal, tough guys, you will be at the top of the list,'' he said of Mr. White."
I wonder how all the conservatives would have reacted if it had been a Democratic Administration that had thumbed their noses at the military, as Bush and his neocon amateurs did?
→ That's a stretch
October 3, 2009 - 00:30 ET by Cool ArrowYou'll have Obama tagged as the author of "The Surge" before you're done rewriting this history book, won't you?
Are you repeating 6th grade again?
What year was that surge thing again, coolarrow?
October 3, 2009 - 00:34 ET by 007memoWhat year was that surge thing again, coolarrow? How many years did it take for Bush to wake up? How many lives lost, how many soldiers maimed, and how many trillions spent?
So you see what happenned when the military took the reins from the neocons.
→ Help, Jer
October 3, 2009 - 00:48 ET by Cool ArrowMore like $700 billion.
Five years. Too long in my book, but he did make the adjustments in '08.
But once again, you refuse to name these Republicans who have given up on the War.
You really need to come up with some names. You made the claim, back it up.
I don't know much about this War. I wasn't all that much in favor of it, but you can't make up your own facts and expect to get any respect.
I get the feeling respect isn't something you care much about anyway.
Cool, Wanna wager Jethro Bodine's portrait is...
October 3, 2009 - 00:35 ET by R D Helm...prominently displayed in 000's classroom as a person to emulate?
After all, he gradeated the 6th grade twiced. :-)
-Dave
The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
→ That's it
October 3, 2009 - 00:52 ET by Cool ArrowHe was a Double-nought spy his own self, wasn't he?
→ Double-nought
October 3, 2009 - 00:59 ET by Cool ArrowDropped on his head over at the cement pond doin' a Peepin' Tom routine on Miss Ellie's critters.
You're right memo
October 3, 2009 - 01:28 ET by RESTLESS 1Bush leaned too much on Rumsfeld and not enough on commanders on the ground. Alas, Rumsfeld was sent on his way, Petreaus (sp?) was sent in, the surge was effected, and we ended up accomplishing many of our goals. Saddam? Dead. Uday? Dead? Qusay? Dead. Elections? accomplished. WMD? Not there. Win win. And all of this before the surge. The surge helped rid us of the insurgents, and to secure the areas still in peril.
Quite frankly, we could have left well before the surge, at the death of saddam, (at the hands of Iraqi justice mind you), and been termed successful, but we did not want to leave Iraq vulnerable to Syria and Iran. We also wanted their security forces to have a fair shot at securing the country.
By the way, you seem to forget the phenomenal success of the engagement before the insurgents showed up. We took over Baghdad ahead of schedule despite having to hold up for a sand storm and for support vehicles.
You can try to rewrite history, but it doesn't work here.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
You mean like Kerry?
October 4, 2009 - 21:19 ET by CobraMan"Plenty of Democrats supported Bush"
Well, as long as it helped their chances of re-elections. Some were for the war before they were against it, remember?
"All Americans wanted Bush to succeed, whether they agreed with him or not."
No, quite a few wanted him to fail, completely. Have you forgotten about the Code Pink protests, Cindy Shehan, "General Betray Us ads by Moveon.org, and the like?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Edit
October 3, 2009 - 00:24 ET by 007memoEdit
→ Finally
October 3, 2009 - 00:31 ET by Cool ArrowFinally, a comment from 007memo that makes sense.
Cool,
October 3, 2009 - 00:32 ET by R D HelmLOL-Yeah, but if it had been totally blank, it would have been better still.
-Dave
The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
It' snot a "war"
October 2, 2009 - 14:20 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonIf they can 'label' it as a"unutted notions police action".
As in the Korean "Conflict" was, in all actuality a "Police Action".
And since it now, no longer a "war" scenario, we get rid of the military aspect and make it a 'criminal' act.
As a criminal act, the libs feel that the 'criminals' that are fighting a WAR against us can be treated as shoplifters and given full Constitutional RIGHTS and be tried in civilian courts.
And so goes the liberal mindset.... down the tubes into the sewer where the likes of polanski and letterman dwell.
http://gjresult.com
Cool... You generally
October 2, 2009 - 17:05 ET by JerCool...
You generally display commendable courage in calling out total bullsh!t claims such as the one posted by willis. What happened this time?
Jer
→ Don't know Jer
October 2, 2009 - 17:24 ET by Cool ArrowI was picking up grandkids from school at the time?
Pretty much, I'm of the opinion that an act of war, regardless of whether it is declared, is still war.
If you're referring to the Polanski dig, aside from local libs at NB who aren't afraid to take a stand, I'm hearing mostly silence or support from the liberal community at large.
Never mind, Cool...
October 2, 2009 - 17:33 ET by JerIt's the post up the thread in which Willis was blaming "every school shooting, mall shooting, etc. on Democrats". 007 responded to his asininity, and yet 007 was the one subsequently atatcked.
But, no biggie. As I suggested below, Willis just wants attention.
Jer
wrong again.
October 2, 2009 - 17:37 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonI just enjoy relaxing in the shade and drawing fire away from normal people so they can have decent, civil, HONEST discussions.
I must be doing pretty well.
We're on page three now.
Been a lot of news happening since I drew you back down here.
Got any FACTS to prove me wrong on any of my 'claims' yet? So far it's just been all whine.
http://gjresult.com
→ Jer
October 2, 2009 - 18:04 ET by Cool ArrowMy point to 007memo goes back a couple of days, stemming from a claim about the usual "Bush lied about WMD"
Memo should show some ability to debate honestly before expecting respect.
Jer,
October 3, 2009 - 01:46 ET by RESTLESS 1You wouldn't be saying that it is Cool's duty to point out every ridiculous claim made here would you? And you certainly aren't claiming that unless he defends the liberal position, he's not commendable. That would be beneath you, right?
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Restless...
October 3, 2009 - 15:06 ET by JerRestless...
Of course I'm not saying that it was Cool's duty to point out "every ridiculous claim made here." That's akin to what Sgt. Rock demands of me, so I, in partricular, know how ludicrous and unfair that would be.
But there was an extenuating circumstance in this case. Cool was posting in the very section of the thread where Willis had made his repugnant accusation, and, not only that, he (Cool) was attacking the very guy (007) who Willis had in his crosshairs. That is why I somewhat reflexively made the statement to Cool.
But, you'll also note I shortly thereafter backed off [re pressuring Cool] realizing it had been inappropriate and sort of juvenile for me to do so.
Jer
Thx Jer
October 3, 2009 - 22:50 ET by RESTLESS 1I was worried there for a moment.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
"Repugnant Accusation"?
October 5, 2009 - 08:43 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonNo jer, I stated an oddity in the news that was never reported on.
You didn't much like the statement, so instead of making an effort to prove me wrong, you decided to call me a liar.
Every attempt on my part has been sidestepped by you and your fellow trolls.
You have nothing but whine to support your position which adds a lot more credibility to my position.
Now little feller, PROVE ME WRONG, or apologize, stop whining and go find another battle to lose n the field of ideas.
You made the comment that I wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and promptly set out to prove you weren't qualified to be in the drawer with sharp objects.
http://gjresult.com
.007 Note: Can't find Tomahawks, at a 4th of July sales booth
October 2, 2009 - 14:12 ET by upcountrywaterU.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the
headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service
"We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will
protect our people."
State controlled health care is Tort Reform.
007, I dont know how much
October 2, 2009 - 14:16 ET by bassndude007, I dont know how much combat you have seen. From what I have read, most likely none. What is the diffrence between "war" and combat action? Please define. They called Vietnam a "police action". I've got news for 'em.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
And you have factual evidence
October 1, 2009 - 09:03 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnsonthat would prove my statements wrong?
Please feel free to present your researchable, provable 'facts' here for our amusement.
Every time I make the claim the trolls come out in droves, but when they start trying to prove me wrong, they disappear from view?
http://gjresult.com
Your mother wears army boots, willis.
October 2, 2009 - 14:24 ET by 007memoYour mother wears army boots, willis. Now prove me wrong. Go on. That pretty much sums up the logic of your challenge to me.
You made nonsensical pronouncements, willis:
"EVERY school shooting, mall shooting, athletic club shooting has been done by democrats or the children of hardcore liberals.
It never has been the Conservatives in our society that have resorted to violence to force their opinions on others."
You can not support that crap with any evidence, anywhere. Nada, zip, zero. Ya got nuthin.
Did you ever wonder why people read books, willis? It helps make them, ya know, not dumb.
Challenge met.
October 2, 2009 - 16:55 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnson"Your mother wears army boots, willis. Now prove me wrong. Go on."
My Mother died on July 8th 1962.
When they closed her casket she was wearing a black and white dress, and black high heels.
And the rest of your childish, poorly thought out rant is also factually inaccurate.
But, as a liberal, facts have no meaning to you. And the truth burns yer little brain cells.
http://gjresult.com
Well, actually, I have a great deal of proof.
October 2, 2009 - 17:00 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnson" You can not support that crap with any evidence, anywhere. Nada, zip, zero. Ya got nuthin."
The media never once mentioned the political leanings of the shooters in any of the mass murders in this country.
If any were of the 'conservative' leanings it would have been the lead headline.
They only hide the political party for democrats.
http://gjresult.com
Oh yeah, that's proof, Willis!
October 2, 2009 - 17:17 ET by 007memoOh yeah, that's proof, Willis!
You say, "The media never once mentioned the political leanings of the shooters in any of the mass murders in this country", so that's how you know they must have been liberals.
I was wrong about you, I thought you were just making asinine assertions without any proof. My mistake.
So, if it's never once been mentioned in the media that you are looney, then you are in fact looney. I follow your logic now.
007? name calling is all you have?
October 2, 2009 - 17:23 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonHow liberal of you.
No ability to honestly discuss an issue, you get proven wrong with real life facts, and you start the name calling to bolster your positions?
How truly liberal of you.
http://gjresult.com
Don't worry about it, 007...True, Willis
October 2, 2009 - 17:26 ET by JerTrue, Willis isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even he knows his claims are baseless and absurd. He is simply posting incendiary nonsense to provoke a reaction.
Jer
Yep! and look what crawls out......
October 2, 2009 - 17:31 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonLibs that can't prove the position wrong with facts.
Just more whining.
double ought accused my Mother of wearing combat boots and challenged me to prove him wrong.
I did so, yet he has not come back with an apology for being wrong.
As I stated, no honest discussions based on facts with your children.
Just more whines.....
http://gjresult.com
uh, point of fact....
October 3, 2009 - 22:31 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonI don't need to be the 'sharpest knife' in the drawer.
I just need to be sharp enough to be in the knife drawer.
Which begs the question, why are you here?
http://gjresult.com
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point.
October 4, 2009 - 21:25 ET by CobraMan"Did you ever wonder why people read books, willis? It helps make them, ya know, not dumb."
It's obvious, based upon that statement, that reading comprehension is not your forte.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Willis,Normally, I'd be
October 2, 2009 - 20:32 ET by fitzfongWillis,
Normally, I'd be inclined to believe your assertion on this matter...and I wouldn't be too surprised if it's true. But since you were the one who made the declaration, it appears that it's your obligation to provide the support (not 007's to provide the information debunking your assertion) when challenged.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
fitz... It's not even
October 2, 2009 - 21:06 ET by Jerfitz...
It's not even remotely true, but I just don't feel like dignifying that witless troll by attempting to engage in a debate with him. I discovered last night it's utterly pointless.
But geez, you don't even need to go further than Whitman or Bundy to demolish Willis' ludicrous claim. True, the young Republican Bundy, didn't use a gun. He preferred raping, sodomizing and then slashing to death his 30+ victims.
Jer
Jer, I must say that
October 2, 2009 - 21:52 ET by fitzfongJer,
I must say that while Willis' assertion is hyperbolic, it's difficult not to sympathize with his position. It was a woefully irresponsible and disingenuous article by Thomas Friedman in that it aligned Obama's ideological adversaries with non-existent individual kook assassin(s) in a shameless attempt to stifle debate. Last I checked, Lee Harvey Oswald was a leftist...that doesn't mean that all leftists are depraved enough to murder the President. But that's exactly what Friedman is suggesting about those who oppose (or even dislike) this President. It's the lazy, cynical argument that apologists for the "Fairness" Doctrine employ...the "Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Mark Levin/Glenn Beck employ 'hate speech' that could trigger violence" justification for advocating limitations on free speech.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
fitz...
October 3, 2009 - 00:37 ET by JerIt's tempting for you to sympathize with Willis' assertions because your ideological positions are more compatible. But re-examine the first two paragraphs of his post about every shooter/killer being a Democrat or the offspring of hard core liberals, and conservatives never being responsible for violence. [I'm paraphrasing from memory.] Surely you can reject Willis' over-broad smear without compromising your disdain for Friedman's conduct.
Personally, I think Friedman should stick to foreign policy analyses which are generally level-headed (you may disagree) from a center/left perspective and avoid the hand-wringing socio-political carping and behavorial hectoring he clumsily deployed in this instance.
Jer
Jer,
October 3, 2009 - 01:38 ET by RESTLESS 1Why the hell should we give Friedman a pass in this instance? It's not the first time he's engaged in this behavior.
While I may have entertained his positions on the Iraq war, as he defended it from my recollection, he has a history of this type of hyperbolic attack on conservatives. Don't confuse all disagreement of Friedman's attack as defending Willis' assertion.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Restless...A pass for Friedman?
October 3, 2009 - 15:28 ET by Jer"Why the hell should we give Friedman a pass in this instance? It's not the first time he's engaged in this behavior."
Who said anything about giving Friedman a pass in this instance? Not me. Even I didn't give him a pass. I explicitly criticized his comments.
If I'm going to be hanged, at least let it be for crimes I've commited. [Not that I'm guilty of any, you understand.] ;-)
Jer
Yup, my bad
October 5, 2009 - 11:36 ET by RESTLESS 1(I've GOT to stop going to Jason's beer forum before posting.) :)
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Jason's beer forum? Tell
October 5, 2009 - 14:18 ET by fitzfongJason's beer forum? Tell me more.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Fitz.... http://newsbuster
October 5, 2009 - 14:22 ET by JasonCFitz....
http://newsbusters.o...
Resurrected after a year and a half at Blonde's request.
Jer, Look, all I'm saying
October 3, 2009 - 14:56 ET by fitzfongJer,
Look, all I'm saying is that while I reject his broad brush assertion, I understand it's in response to an equally dishonest broad brush assertion by Thomas Friedman. Only Thomas Friedman's distortion is much more cynical and influential. This is a guy who is essentially using some mythical assassin as a vehicle not merely to dispute Obama's political opponents, but to connect a theoretical assassination to the articulation of policy positions by Obama's political opponents. It's an attempt to create a back door "justification" by which published/broadcasted opposition to Administration/Congressional policies is virtually regulated out of existence...suggest, for example, that conservative talk radio is "incendiary" and can "trigger" some non-existent, Timothy McVeigh-type lunatic into committing an act that he "wouldn't be capable" of committing otherwise and you move the ball closer towards the objective of limiting free speech for "security" reasons. In reading some of Tom Friedman's "work" regarding the environment, I've seen that he has no interest in permitting free speech if opposition to his point-of-view gets in the way of his desires...in what passes for his mind, there is too much at stake to "indulge" those who are skeptical of "Global Warming"...that's the logic of a tyrant. So, while I reject Willis' inaccurate and hyperbolic claim about "every" shooter, I have no qualms about putting it into context with those of Thomas Friedman...a man who has a much larger soap box from which to spew his fallacies.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Well jer,
October 3, 2009 - 22:36 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnson" But re-examine the first two paragraphs of his post about every
shooter/killer being a Democrat or the offspring of hard core liberals, "
Do you have evidence that would indicate my statement to be false?
Or is it just your 'belief' that it's not correct?
" and conservatives never being responsible for violence. [I'm paraphrasing from memory.] "
Instead of paraphrasing, why not scroll up and look at how badly you 'paraphrased' my comment into a blatant lie?
Yer playing in the sharp knife drawer jer.....
http://gjresult.com
Do you have evidence that
October 4, 2009 - 12:42 ET by fitzfongDo you have evidence that would indicate my statement to be false?
Dude, that's weak. If Jer had made the statement you had in reverse, it would have been his obligation to provide evidence supporting his claim...not yours to produce evidence disputing the claim. As you made the original, unsupported statement of fact, it's your responsibility to a) produce the basis for your claim, b) back off the statement or c) let the statement stand unsupported...and thus, render it bulls***. As it stands, you're in the not-so-polite company of Dan Rather.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
He has nothing credible to question the statistic with.
October 4, 2009 - 20:38 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonSo far all he has done is cried and whined and never offered anything of value to dispute the claim.
And typical of liberals, runs away from offering anything that can be challenged with a nickles worth of research.
His remarks are more towards demeaning the messenger than offering to disprove my statements.
Just more name calling and whining.
He's a troll without a bridge to crawl under.
http://gjresult.com
EVERY school shooting, mall
October 4, 2009 - 20:52 ET by fitzfongEVERY school shooting, mall shooting, athletic club shooting has been done by democrats or the children of hardcore liberals.
This was your original statement. Jer didn't make it. 007 didn't make it. Nobody forced you to make it. You made the statement of your own free will. What is your basis for this statement? Where is your documentation for this statement? Or did you make it up? Claiming that it's someone else's responsibility to check your facts does not get you off the hook.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Here you go peanut...
October 4, 2009 - 21:46 ET by JerTed Bundy: Boy Scout, MYF vice-president...worked for Nelson Rockefeller's campaign...attended 1968 Republican convention, worked for the state Republican party in Washington, close friends with GOP governor, did oppo work against Dem candidate...later slaughtered over thirty young women
Charles "Tex" Watson: strict religious background...domineering mom...Manson family member...cold blooded killer
Richard "The Night Stalker" Ramirez: Greatly influenced by his cousin Mike [Special Forces in Viet Nam, regaled the young Ramirez with photos of women he had tortured in Nam, and taught Ramirez how to shoot and cut up victims]
Charles Whitman: Mom was a devout Roman Catholic, father an unyielding disciplinarian. Whitman was an altar boy, Eagle Scout and a gun enthusiast who put his marksmanship on display by picking off his victims like clay pigeons from his perch atop the tower at the University of Texas
Patrick Purdy: Ayran Nation right-wing bigot who killed 5 and wounded 29 with an AK-47 at a Stockton, Calif. elementary school in 1989
Jeffrey Weise: Hitler admirer who posted at Neo-Nazi websites and killed 10 at a Red Lake Minn. high school in 2005
Wayne Lo: son of a Taiwanese fighter pilot, Lo was reputedly an outspoken anti-Semite bigot who advocated the segregation of blacks and homosexuals; killed 2 and wounded 4 in a 1992 Mass. school shooting
Ed Alway: reportedly after raving against "pornographers", he killed 7 at Cal St. Fullerton in 1976
Joseph Paul Franklin: noted right-wing racist who murdered an interracial couple and is a suspect in other racially motivated killings
Bruce Pierce [in alleged conspiracy with Robert Mathews and David Lane] Aryrian Nation members--associated with The Order--assassinated Jewish liberal radio talk host, Alan Berg--gunning him down in his drive-way
That only scratches the surface--it doesn't include myriad abortion clinic bombings and assassinations, etc.--but that should do for a start.
So, troll, and make no mistake you are the classic troll, are you capable of doing any research to substantiate the claims you have made? I debunked--with sourced facts--the ludicrous 40 trillion dollar figure you pulled out of thin air the other night and which you refused to authenticate [because you couldn't]. Now, your goof-ball, inflammatory assertions on this thread are likewise reduced to a pile of rubble.
You can either cobble together some sort of flimsy counterargument, admit total defeat, or just silently slink away. I suggest to avoid calling any further attention to your shredded integrity you opt for the latter.
Jer
And their "POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS" are
October 5, 2009 - 08:52 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonStated where exactly?
You name 'religious' backgrounds of family, but not the political party of the killer.
ayran nation supporters? Hardly "Conservative" as the tem is used currently by those who would redefine the meanings of words.
Go play in the plastic spoon drawer.
http://gjresult.com
Just when I think you
October 5, 2009 - 19:02 ET by JerJust when I think you couldn't possibly get any more thick-headed, you continue to prove me wrong. Alas, that's the only thing you've proved me wrong about--having not even made the slightest effort to prove your outlandish assertions, which happens to be your responsibility. Trollism on stilts. You're a total embarrassment.
Jer
Gee whiz jer. PAGE SIX and yer still whining.....
October 6, 2009 - 09:30 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonIt only becomes my responsibility to PROVE my position when YOU PROVIDE credible evidence that I am in error.
So far little buddy, all you have provided is your whine, cry and babble.
I have plenty of empirical evidence that support my position.
All you have is tears and slobber on your chin.
http://gjresult.com
Willis, my child, your
October 6, 2009 - 10:12 ET by JerWillis, my child, your total dumbassity has moved beyond clownish, on to pathetic, and now to painful. Scroll up to fitzfong's post for another view of your obligations regarding your claims if you insist on dismissing mine.
Dip into that vast reservoir of "empirical" evidence and just post one credible piece of "proof" in support of that load of crap you've posited. Your juvenile doding and squirming while sputtering lame excuses are making you the absolute laughing stock of NewsBusters.
Jer
Sorry little boy....
October 6, 2009 - 10:32 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonYour denial does not constitute credible evidence that my statements were incorrect.
Using your theory, if I said "jer is alive" that would be a lie until I prove that you are actually alive.
So far all I have seen to prove that you exist is a feeble attempt at artificial intelligence.
http://gjresult.com
Your denial does not
October 6, 2009 - 12:50 ET by fitzfongYour denial does not constitute credible evidence that my statements were incorrect.
Otherwise known as the "Dan Rather Defense". Step 1: Make pronouncement of fact that you cannot prove. Step 2: When questioned on the validity of your assertion, pass the buck, claiming that it's the responsibility of others to "disprove" the assertion as opposed to your responsibility to prove it. Step 3: When cornered because you cannot possibly produce the evidence supporting your claims, dig your heels in, then repeat (only louder, with more bluster and desperation) that it's not your responsibility to provide adequate defense of your position, but the responsibilty of others to debunk it...with you serving as the judge and jury as to what constitutes "credible" evidence. Step 4: Flail away, seeking the backing of your peers, only to discover that you're increasingly isolated because nobody with any sense wants to be anywhere near you at this point. Step 5: Maintain an aggressive facade to mask the likelihood that you know that you're wrong, yet you're too stubborn and arrogant to admit it. Step 6: Suggest that if you got the story wrong, you'd like to be the first to break it. Step 7: Succumb to the fact that people have completely lost interest in what you have to say because you've proven it can't be trusted...but maintain that bullish facade, even if it appears half-hearted and resigned to defeat. Step 8: Retire to a few banquets where a few of your former peers summon the sense of humor to tell the world how great you are/were to mitigate some of your obvious humiliation. Step 9: Learn nothing from your experience and sue, sue, sue...but by that point, you're damaged goods...a source of amusement and ridicule rather than an irritant. Mark Geragos wouldn't even take your case.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
OK. The onus of proof of any comment I make is on me?
October 6, 2009 - 15:08 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonFair enough.
Your declaration that I lied is a lie in and of itsself.
I present the entirety of this thread as irrefutable proof that you have no facts to bolster your position other than your repeated blustering attempts to get somebody to dry your tears.
You ARE a small minded troll with no intellectual value to this discussion.
http://gjresult.com
Wow. When you reach a
October 6, 2009 - 15:30 ET by fitzfongWow. When you reach a dead end, you make sure to take your dignity out with you.
I'm sure I'm running a fool's errand by asking you this, but I'll go ahead and do it: Where did I declare that you lied? I know I've called you to task repeatedly for failing to back up your original claim, but that certainly falls way short of the thresshold required to be accused of calling you a liar. An honorable poster would either produce the evidence that I declared you a liar or retract the statement. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to suddenly become honorable.
But here's a tip: speak/write less until you think more.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Gee fitz I've called you to task for failing
October 7, 2009 - 09:20 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnsonto provide ANY credible evidence that my original statement was in error.
BUT, like jer, you keep complaining that I tossed out an untrue statement with nothing to justify YOUR position..
Now, in the real world, an untrue statement is pretty much a lie.
Now, do you have any credible evidence that my statement was wrong?
Or is it just that your ideology prevents you from believing in the possibility that I may actually be RIGHT?
So, please feel free to continue on your fools errand. By while you're wandering in the desert of ideas, why not either provide some PROOF that I am wrong, or suck it up and admit that you can't prove me to be in error.
http://gjresult.com
Oh, is that how it works
October 7, 2009 - 10:39 ET by fitzfongOh, is that how it works now? So, all you have to do is make any statement of fact and it stands as the truth as long as nobody produces evidence to the contrary that you deem credible?
By that logic, I can throw out any irresponsible claim, and as long as you can't debunk it to my satisfaction, it becomes settled fact. For example, perhaps I will state that Willis_Leon_Johnson is some kind of criminal (for the purpose of keeping it clean, we'll say a thief). Now, let's say I've just publicly accused you of being a thief: have I produced any evidence supporting my accusation? No. But you haven't proven to me that you're not a thief, so, by your logic, the fact remains that you're a thief...and keep in mind, you can keep chasing down evidence that you believe disproves my wild accusation. But remember, I'm the one who gets to determine whether or not your evidence rises to the level of disproving my wild accusation (and I'm not in a particularly charitable mood, so I think you might have to get used to the notion that you're a thief...just because I said so and you can't prove otherwise).
Thief.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
So, you prefer personal attacks instead of refuting my comments?
October 7, 2009 - 11:26 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonWhy is that fitz?
All you have to do is prove my statement to be false, yet you continue to attack me personally.
The FACT that you will not make any effort to disprove my statement PROVES my statement.
http://gjresult.com
All you have to do is prove
October 7, 2009 - 11:53 ET by fitzfongAll you have to do is prove my statement to be false, yet you continue to attack me personally.
How difficult is this? I don't have to prove anything. You were the one who made the statement of fact. It is therefore YOUR OBLIGATION, to support your claim.
I know this is difficult for you. It appears you blurted out something based on nothing but raw anger and emotion. It was a stupid statement that you should have retracted after you were first challenged. But instead of supporting or retracting the statement, you decided to dig your hole deeper...failing to produce further evidence, just repeating what you originally said (only louder, as if the increasing bluster would paper over the widening gap you've created in your credibility). Now, you're starting to come apart at the seams. It's a sad spectacle. So, why don't you just swallow your pride and admit that your ass is kicked?
But, if you want to do it the hard way, I'm still here to rub your nose in it. Maintain that it's my obligation to debunk your original statement. Fine. Meanwhile, word on the street is that you're a thief. So far, you haven't produced sufficient evidence to make that accusation go away. I guess it stands, then.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Sorry fitz, you need to apologize for the personal attacks.
October 7, 2009 - 12:02 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonThen you need to get over yourself and this position you have assumed.
Your position is 'any statement made by anybody that you do not accept as true is automatically a lie until they prove their position to your satisfaction.'
All I ever asked for was credible evidence that I was in error.
All you ever returned was personal attacks.
So fitzzy, grow a pair, learn what it is to be intellectually honest, and learn how to discuss things in a rational, adult, HONEST manner.
You have proved what you do not understand. Now show us what you are capable of if you just put your mind to it.
Don't bother responding because no one will read it.
http://gjresult.com
Believe me, son, if I ever
October 7, 2009 - 12:34 ET by fitzfongBelieve me, son, if I ever need lessons on what it is to be intellectually honest, you will never be in the position to give them. You're in over your head. I know it. Everyone here knows it. And, if you're honest with yourself, you know it. You've been caught trying to pass off a dubious statement as a matter of fact...maybe you meant it as a non sequitur, hoping nobody would scrutinize it...and now you're surrounded. If you look up the thread, I (and others) actually had some sympathy for your position...if not for your hyperbolic, highly questionable statement. But you've managed to erode any sympathy you once had by stubbornly tightening your grip on an increasingly flimsy premise. You've descended to self-parody. Next stop: laughingstock.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
silly child
October 7, 2009 - 14:02 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonYou made a bunch of statements that I disagree with.
PROVE THEM.
Or die on your own skewer.
http://gjresult.com
* "I spent a lot of money
October 7, 2009 - 14:19 ET by fitzfong*
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Poor baby.
October 7, 2009 - 14:41 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnsonhttp://gjresult.com
Uh, Jer
October 5, 2009 - 11:45 ET by RESTLESS 1The only one on your list here that proves your point is Ted Bundy.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with Willis' statement, but I equally loathe your statement that these guys were conservative because they were racists, hitler supporters and homophobic.
I know you'll say that that's now what your saying, but looking again at the list, its hard to escape that conclusion.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Restless... Frankly, I'm
October 5, 2009 - 18:47 ET by JerRestless...
Frankly, I'm surprised at your reaction: a weak disassociation from Willis' wild, unsourced allegations vs. your "loathing" of my statements.
In the first place, it is Willis' obligation to substantiate his flagrantly hyperbolic claims, which are nothing more than a cheap, incendiary smear. But since he is a a troll and a coward, he flat-out refuses to do so--(a repeat of his behavior when he made the likewise unsourced claim that 40 trillion dollars had been spent on welfare programs since the laucnching of the War on Poverty. When I provided solid evidence from the conservative Heritage Foundation--as part of their study that too much had been spent for too little in return--that the correct figure was 15.9 trillion, Willis the troll simply dismissed it and said he was sticking by his [made up] allegation.)
We could dance all day on the head of a pin about precisely where the individuals on my list above stood ideologically, or the type of political household they grew up in. But, I think I have raised sufficient doubt that they are all democrats, or the children of hard-core liberals or devoid of any conservative influences, that the ball is clearly in Willis the troll's court--not that it wasn't there already--to MAKE HIS CASE. And I can't believe you would believe otherwise.
Jer
Jer
October 5, 2009 - 20:55 ET by RESTLESS 1"...I equally loathe..." There. I bolded and italicized it for you. Equally. Hardly a weak disassociation.
Second, I agree that Willis' assertion is absurd. In all honesty, it took me aback that he made it. I didn't respond because you already had, and like most here, I am willing to let each fight their own battles.
Thirdly, can you look objectively at your post please, without the anger for Willis. I mean really, other than bundy, the whole rationale for any of these being conservative is homophobia, racism, support of hitler, etc...
You really telling me you can't see why I took offense????
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Restless...
October 5, 2009 - 23:33 ET by JerI apologize. I did overlook the word "equally".
I have to run to the store, but afterwards I'll re-examine my post in light of your objections and follow-up later--it might be tomorrow.
Again, please forgive the oversight.
Jer
One more preliminary point: I'm neither angry at Willis--nor do I dislike him. He may be a great guy. But it is extremely exasperating--to say the least--to encounter his gratuitous, uncorroborated, extraordinarlily provocative and inflammatory accusations, and when challenged, be called a liar and told to prove him wrong. He has yet to provide a sliver of evidence--either here or with respect to his 40 trillion dollar claim the other night--to support his arguments. To me, that is the very essence of trollism, and yes, cowardice. He can rectify his failure, and still redeem himself, but thus far he has chosen to simply deflect and name-call.
In point of fact, Restless...
October 7, 2009 - 01:09 ET by JerI've already made a shambles of Willis's absurdly broad smear via the Bundy case alone [aside from the de mininmis distinction that Bundy disdained the use of firearms when he sneaked into sorority houses, brutally raped, sodomized, terrorized, and butchered young co-eds to death.]
The fact is that mass killers rarely are remarkable for, or distinguished by, any political affiliation or activity. Bundy was somewhat of an exception because of his long association with Republican activism. On the other hand, John Wayne Gacy had been active in the Democratic party. In a great many cases, school shooters are simply two young to have developed a political identity, and frankly the clear majority are motivated by perceived "bullying" or profound psychological disturbances.
But note that Willis also tosses in the claim about the killers being the children of "hard core liberals". There is precious little evidence backing up this claim. On the contrary, in those cases where the philosophical attitudes extant in a given household are ascertainable, I would argue that in more cases than not, the influences are anything but liberal. [You may suggest my implications in the instances cited are that the accused are driven by conservative impulses--but that overstates my argument. We may quibble whether or not authoritarian gun fanciers, religious zealots, or bigoted white supremacists, are per se "conservative", but I submit it is difficult if not impossibe to sustain the argument that they are "hard core liberals"--even where they may ["may" because I have no proof of same] be nominal Democrats. Yet that is precisely what Willis inisists we accept as established fact--again without a shred of evidence.
Consequently, I have selected and noted several individuals involved in violent incidents wherein there was at least a possible ideological consideration influencing motive. They are not perfect examples. There are virtually no perfect examples. But, still, my evidence is credible enough and plausible enough that it scuttles Willis's pathetically anemic assertions to the contrary--claims which he steadfastlly refuses to corroborate, even though the onus is on him to do so, not on me to deconstruct.
His response to my debunking of his $40 trillion claim a couple of nights ago--after doing my homework and demonstrating his figure was, according to the very respected, very conservative, Heritage Foundation, a $25 trillion exaggeration--is instructive and highly relevant to the present "debate": "Nah, he replied, "I think I'll stick with my figure." That's the type of 'devastating' logic and tactics of Willis graphically and embarrassingly displayed.
So, this is the kind of juvenile asshattery I have had and am still having to deal with [as is fitz, who has meticulously cut his pathetic blathering to shreds].
Jer
Nice Jer
October 7, 2009 - 10:09 ET by RESTLESS 1That's a long way to go to say you assume that bigots, religious zealots, homophobes, and white supremacists are conservative.
Thanks.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
C'mon, Restless...
October 7, 2009 - 15:45 ET by JerI'm not assuming any such thing. I'm suggesting they are not "hard core liberals" (and I'm sure you aren't claiming they are liberals, are you?)
Jer
I'm not claiming anything
October 7, 2009 - 23:41 ET by RESTLESS 1I have no way of knowing. That you used the terms racists, skinheads, homphobes, and white supremacists as proof that they are not liberals, only means you think it proves they are conservatives. Am I missing something?
Now, if you want to debate on whether liberals can be any of the above, we can do that, but elsewhere, as this article has been derailed enough.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Restless...
October 7, 2009 - 23:56 ET by JerRemember...I'm dealing with unsupported overbroad inflammatory generalizations by Willis--who absolutely refuses to back them up despite repeated urging.
My objective is not to disparage conservatives at all. I'm only trying to point out that not every murdering thug is a "liberal", or was the product of a liberal household.
Jer
I know it's late
October 8, 2009 - 00:05 ET by RESTLESS 1And if you can't get to this til Friday, I understand, but I resist the argument that because someone is racist, or homophobic, or whatever, that person is automatically not a liberal.
I would venture to guess that there are at least SOME pro choice, anti gun, pro govt. homphobes and racists out there.
Now, prove me wrong. :) (JK, I hope you get it).
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
I resist the argument that
October 14, 2009 - 23:30 ET by JerI resist the argument that because someone is racist, or homophobic, or whatever, that person is automatically not a liberal.
Fair enough. But Willis is driving the argument, and he is completely out of gas. It is his assertion that every single one of these shooter/murderers is a Democrat or a product of hardcore liberal parents, and that there are no conservatives who are perpetrators of violence to impose their beliefs. Yet he has offered not a single shred of evidence to support his wild, sweeping generalizations, and flatly refuses to do so.
I would venture to guess that there are at least SOME pro choice, anti gun, pro govt. homphobes and racists out there.
So would I. But the onus is on Willis to prove his case. I have at the very least raised reasonable counterarguments and provided credible evidence which tends to undermine his assertions. It is well past time that he came forward with his supportive proof or, failing that, ignominiously fold his tent and go home.
Jer
Here's your evidence.
October 4, 2009 - 21:46 ET by CobraMan'Do you have evidence that would indicate my statement to be false?"
I have evidence, the shooter involved in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska.
"The perpetrator in the shootings was Robert A. Hawkins,19 (May 17, 1988-December 5, 2007), who was born in the Royal Air Force Lakenheath of Suffolk, England, to parents Ronald Hawkins and Maribel "Molly" Rodriguez." Source
Humm, Lakenhearth is the home of the USAF 48th Fighter Wing. Does he sound like a child of "hardcore liberals" to you? No? I didn't think so.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
So, he was a "conservative"
October 5, 2009 - 08:56 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonBecause he was BORN on an Air Force Base?
Your position is that since his parents were military, he grew up with the desire to murder people indiscriminately?
Never once had a mind of his own?
I know that YOU can do better.
http://gjresult.com
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
October 4, 2009 - 21:33 ET by CobraMan"EVERY school shooting, mall shooting, athletic club shooting has been done by democrats or the children of hardcore liberals."
How did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you trace the backgrounds of every "shooter," including charting their political associations and those of their parents? If not, then your statement is baseless speculation.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
There's that brown dome
September 30, 2009 - 19:09 ET by celatorThere's that brown dome thing growing out of Tom's head again.
What is it? A door stop? A cheese storage bin? A salad bowl? A small compost pile? Last week's Jello from the cafeteria?
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Freidman
September 30, 2009 - 19:15 ET by charlietexasI never liked this guy. People like this should not have a stage at all. He is a walking example of why the NY Times is dying.
Violence
September 30, 2009 - 19:16 ET by charlietexasFor the record, I don't know this, but I think the guy that was murdered taking the census was killed by a DEMOCRAT.
I don't know this but I think you killed that census guy,charlie
October 20, 2009 - 18:01 ET by 007memoI don't know this but I think you killed that census guy, charlie.
Even worse, and for the record, I think you are a Democrat.
Secret Feelings
September 30, 2009 - 20:46 ET by viluzionI think the progs not so secretly hope somebody will make zero a martyr before he reveals the true level of his incompetence to such a degree that even Chrissie and Keithie can no longer deny his lack of qualification to even reliably ask if you want fries with that. I pray that he remains safe until 2012 or at least 2010 when he can make a real difference in the outcome of the elections to be held in those years.