The requirements for a moral license are obviously tougher than those for a gun license, but even so I'm pretty sure Giffords passes the background check.
By opposing gun control legislation, we give everyone the opportunity to have the sort of moral growth that Ms. Giffords experienced after being shot in the head. And especially, by not preventing lunatics from owning guns, we extend the benefits of these moral lessons to all Americans within range.
Knobgobbling lead-filled ejaculate on behalf of the NRA and other various cretins who would literally shoot "skeet" live babies if there was money in it, certainly pisses me off endlessly, but since you guys are individually and collectively assholes and moral monsters on every fucking sentient human level — including the rhetorical and factual, as you so aptly prove in your "Note about Gabby Giffords" — I say that everyone, including ex-Congresswomen and hobos and priests and most incarcerated rapists, has the moral license to call you assholes.
Odd, isn't it, how everyone at National Review who wet their trousers on September 11 felt qualified to issue dictums concerning 20% of the worlds' population and several sovereign nations.
"Childish display?" Why don't they call her retarded? They already have. The woman was a congresswoman, for fuck's sake. If a former legislator is not definitionally entitled to weigh in on public policy that has personally affected her who the fuck should? Its not like she's a former exterminator suddenly catapulted to political prominence, or a football player.
And these poor, high-minded idealists at the National Review, being offended by the use of the word "childish", how can Giffords sleep at night, knowing her moral license is being questioned by the people who employ Jonah Goldberg?
Apparently the only kind of accident that gives one "special grace to pronounce upon public-policy [sic] questions" is what they have in their pants every time they pass a dark-skinned male.
And blahs. Don't forgt the blahs. Preferably blah Muslims. Several months ago I posted a lengthy rant at my shitty little blog regarding the whole gun issue, making the primary point that gun policy in this country is entirely controlled by the paranoid...a group of fringe nuts who believe that they need guns because any minute the evil gubmint might pass an intolerable new food labeling requirement, or helmet or seat-bealt law and they will be forced, forced I tell you!!!, to take up arms to defend their FREEDUMB!! And that the fact that they believe they're going to fight off the awesome power of the US military, with its targeted missiles, drones, fighter jets, etc etc etc with their little Bushmaster pea shooters merely indicates the serious depths of their delusion and marks them out as the very people you most don't want to have access to lethal weapons. And that while I wasn't sure exactly what number of children needed to be slaughtered in the cause of soothing the paranoid delusions of the fringe, that the number was obviously > 20. Dead kids don't give them any pause, so perhaps Muslims with guns are the answer.
I suppose you'll accede to everything Ronald Reagan ever wanted--he got shot, too. And while we're at it, Pope John Paul II got shot--you're going to be a good Catholic now, right?0
•
Reply
•
Share ›
willi0000000 Kevin Williamson • 2 minutes ago
i will not accede to everything Ronald Reagan ever wanted. i might be willing to give additional weight to his views on gun control because he was shot. victims usually have a unique view of the circumstances.
As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers. He urged then President Bush to drop his opposition to the bill. that, from the Baltimore Sun, last year.
Try to bemoan the use of the word "cowardly" as unworthy of public debate while calling the person "childish" without being one of the biggest dickheaded hypocrites in the history of two consecutive fucking sentences.
Although I usually respect Ed Schultz, I listened to him for over two hours today blatting on about how Obama should have "respected" red state Dems and rural "gun culture" folks by asking them what they could support and "working with them" more to craft a bill that would have gotten more Senate votes. The more I pay attention to the issue, the more convinced I am that there was nothing Obama could have done to make the bill more palatable to these people. Thanks to the basic design of the Senate, where states having populations less than Pittsburgh have representation equal to California and New York, nothing will change unless the filibuster rules are changed, we get a Dem House, and a Newtown-type tragedy happens in Bismarck, Pierre, or Missoula. Good on Obama, at least, for calling out the NRA for the liars they are.
Actually, it makes me angrier than ever, especially since that withered old fucking douchebag didn't support the Brady Bill when he WAS President. I had forgotten about that one. God, he was awful.
These maroons never tire of nattering on about protecting themselves from the eeevil gubmint, but don't seem able to comprehend at all the "Well regulated militia" part of the sacred Second Amendment, or the spelling out of the duties of the militia in Article 1, Section 8; which are, for those who slept through high school civics: To execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions.
I remember a Malkinjihad from back in the days. Not the first, and of course not the last. IIRC, a group of widows of NY firemen in the wake of 9/11 took issue with the idea that the best way to commemorate the heroism of the firemen was to curtail civil liberties and bomb people in the Middle East, and objected to their loved ones being coopted as backgrounds for recruitment posters.
The Flying Monkeys were invoked and "New York Widows" became a term of abuse in Malkin circles, because again these women were abusing their moral high ground. Moral bullies, SKREEEE.
The central argument was the same... it is not fair for these people to advocate policies with which we disagree, when they have the moral authority to make them unassailable; thus their moral authority is forfeit and it is OK for us to assail them with invective and shit-flinging.
Please don't make me think of Goldberg and spongeworthiness at the same time. That way madness lies. And by madness I mean explicit "fan"-fic of Jonahs conception. Don't tempt me.
And that, in a nutshell, is the entire rightwing armamentarium of argument. Whether it's saying that a former congresswoman who was shot in the head has no moral stature to speak about gun violence, or that the widows of victims of mass violence have no moral standing to speak against mass violence, or that the victim of a horrible disease like Parkinson's has no moral authority to speak about stem-cell research, the rightwing reply is always thus.
Well, I guess that because Ronnie lived through it, and so did Brady, Reagan saw no need to actually follow through. Then again, who knows if he wasn't already waaaayyy into dementia at that point.
It works this way: Because Giffords was shot, the issue is "too personal" for her and thus disqualifies her opinion. Conversely, anybody who advocates for stricter gun control measure who hasn't been shot has no idea what they're talking about because they've never been shot.
Kinda makes political argument impossible, but that's a feature, not a bug, as far as Conservatives are concerned.
If "being shot in the head" doesn't give you "special grace to pronounce upon public-policy questions," maybe being a fucking politician for a decade--you know, until she was shot in the head--does.
My wingnut Brother: "You were beaten nearly to death with a tire-iron, and I don't hear you calling for tire-iron control!"
Me: (trying not to laugh): I would though, if there were an epidemic of tire-iron murders... how many, 10 per day in the USA, plus the occasional massacre? You bet I'd be screaming to outlaw tire-irons. (Brother scowls).
ME: And so would you. You only oppose gun control because you think firearms are a type of "magical talisman" protecting your "freedom" from a Totalitarian government. Wrong!" (we part and go our separate ways).
Nope, they'll just get bigger and worse firearms. Because guns are MAGIC, especially white folks guns. Ask any cowboy in a TV show- their guns had an endless supply of bullets, AND they could kill a person from 20 yards with a revolver. That's good shootin'.
Yes, strange how their placing gunsights over GIffords' district was a harmless joke. But how DARE she speak out against easy access to deadly weapons after being shot with one?
Hi! I'm at work surfing around your blog from my new iphone 3gs! Just wanted to say I love reading your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the superb work!
Hi! I'm at work surfing around your blog from my new iphone 3gs! Just wanted to say I love reading your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the superb work!
"And that the fact that they believe they're going to fight off the awesome power of the US military, with its targeted missiles, drones, fighter jets, etc etc etc with their little Bushmaster pea shooters merely indicates the serious depths of their delusion..."
Yeah, the embattled farmers defeated the British Empire with muskets -- which the British Empire soldiers also had -- therefore, today's embattled crazies will be able to defeat the modern U.S. Army with (gasp!) a few AK-47s. The part about being outgunned to the max doesn't seem to register with them. And their "Wolverines!" fantasies are equally stupid, because guerrillas need a sympathetic populace to hide among ... whereas, if it really came to that, the populace would be pretty much united in determination to fuck these assholes up bigtime, because their opponents would be their own people, not some imaginary eeeeevil furriners.
What, they saw Glenn Reynolds getting justifiably condemned and they decided they just had to get in on that action? I liked the National Review crew better when they were only racist, plutocratic assholes.
Snotty petulant arrogance is not an emotional response to a person that wishes one would just shut the f*ck up because only conservatives are "real men". They are the center of the universe and anyone who disagrees with them are just icky and childish.
On the one hand, I agree that being shot in the head by a lunatic doesn't give you "special grace to pronounce upon public policy questions" or "moral license to call people 'cowards'".
On the other hand, that's because you don't need "special grace" or "moral license" to do those things; we live in a democracy. All of us are allowed to have opinions on public policy (and in some cases actually make it by voting on referendums), and we're all allowed to make moral judgments.
It kind of bothers me that Giffords' Op-Ed doesn't actually make a case for her gun control policy. If you disagree with her on policy, that means you have an opening that allows you to rebut her on policy in a setting where you are the one introducing the facts and arguments.
Or you could just ghoulishly complain about the fact that Giffords has opinions. Either way, I guess.
Your style is really unique in comparison to other people I've read stuff from. I appreciate you for posting when you've got the opportunity, Guess I will just bookmark this web site.
An op ed isn't a policy paper--and don't make the mistake of thinking that the decision of her opponents was made on "policy" grounds. What Giffords and the President were pointing out is that the policy issues were thoroughly debated prior to the actual vote and that promises were made of support which various Republicans and the NRA reneged on. That's the cowardice--Senators presumably gave their word on certain amendments or the vote would never, ever, have come up. This battle won't be won logically, it won't be won with measured white papers--its going to be won slowly through the same kind of hyperbole, intolerance, mockery, and hard slogging work that Mother's Against Drunk Driving and the anti smoking lobby used. There's no point arguing logic with these ideologues. We are going to have to destroy them.
They have a real nice, snug casual fit and also nothing is compromised. They are generally noticed on sky boats and runabouts. You'll also find it could be bought cheaper within the internet. Designer apparel is just after all affordable and easily practical for the notable and rich district. http://www.ncsmed.org.fj/index.php?option=com_blog&view=comments&pid=1412111&Itemid=0
It's not like the British had men to send to the colonies to fight angry tea smugglers. Their real army was needed elsewhere. That's why they hired Hessians.
Hі there! Sοmеonе in my Fаcebοok group sharеd this sіte with us so I cаme to takе а looκ. I'm definitely loving the information. I'm book-marking and wіll bе tωееtіng this to my followerѕ! Eхсеllent blοg and fantаstic ԁesіgn.
Wait a minute -- I thought Seth MacFarlane was the one who's worse than Hitler.
ReplyDeleteThe requirements for a moral license are obviously tougher than those for a gun license, but even so I'm pretty sure Giffords passes the background check.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'd be struck speechless but that isn't like me. Its pretty much something, though. Yes, I think we can put that down as...something.
ReplyDeleteBy opposing gun control legislation, we give everyone the opportunity to have the sort of moral growth that Ms. Giffords experienced after being shot in the head. And especially, by not preventing lunatics from owning guns, we extend the benefits of these moral lessons to all Americans within range.
ReplyDeleteThose comments are hilarious.
ReplyDeleteMind you, I'm nowhere near you guys.
Flush harder, guys!
ReplyDeleteA Note about the National Review:
ReplyDeleteKnobgobbling lead-filled ejaculate on behalf of the NRA and other various cretins who would literally shoot "skeet" live babies if there was money in it, certainly pisses me off endlessly, but since you guys are individually and collectively assholes and moral monsters on every fucking sentient human level — including the rhetorical and factual, as you so aptly prove in your "Note about Gabby Giffords" — I say that everyone, including ex-Congresswomen and hobos and priests and most incarcerated rapists, has the moral license to call you assholes.
Are they trying to make moral abomination into a sport? Why? They've already won the gold medal.
ReplyDeleteNo he's just an unfunny hack. Which, while a serious crime... eh, boredom calls.
ReplyDeleteOdd, isn't it, how everyone at National Review who wet their trousers on September 11 felt qualified to issue dictums concerning 20% of the worlds' population and several sovereign nations.
ReplyDelete"... childish display...." ???
ReplyDeleteY'know, that's not just stroking the gun nuts, that's sucking `em off in broad daylight.
As the joke goes, "We've already established that. Now we're just haggling over the price."
ReplyDeleteI think you just made a perfect headshot.
ReplyDelete"Childish display?" Why don't they call her retarded? They already have. The woman was a congresswoman, for fuck's sake. If a former legislator is not definitionally entitled to weigh in on public policy that has personally affected her who the fuck should? Its not like she's a former exterminator suddenly catapulted to political prominence, or a football player.
ReplyDeleteAnd these poor, high-minded idealists at the National Review, being offended by the use of the word "childish", how can Giffords sleep at night, knowing her moral license is being questioned by the people who employ Jonah Goldberg?
ReplyDeleteThe only way we will get sensible gun restrictions passed is if Muslims everywhere start buying guns.
ReplyDeleteApparently the only kind of accident that gives one "special grace to pronounce upon public-policy [sic] questions" is what they have in their pants every time they pass a dark-skinned male.
ReplyDeleteShe has ladyparts! It's icky and confusing!
ReplyDeleteOr hohmasessuahls.
ReplyDeleteAnd blahs. Don't forgt the blahs. Preferably blah Muslims.
ReplyDeleteSeveral months ago I posted a lengthy rant at my shitty little blog regarding the whole gun issue, making the primary point that gun policy in this country is entirely controlled by the paranoid...a group of fringe nuts who believe that they need guns because any minute the evil gubmint might pass an intolerable new food labeling requirement, or helmet or seat-bealt law and they will be forced, forced I tell you!!!, to take up arms to defend their FREEDUMB!! And that the fact that they believe they're going to fight off the awesome power of the US military, with its targeted missiles, drones, fighter jets, etc etc etc with their little Bushmaster pea shooters merely indicates the serious depths of their delusion and marks them out as the very people you most don't want to have access to lethal weapons. And that while I wasn't sure exactly what number of children needed to be slaughtered in the cause of soothing the paranoid delusions of the fringe, that the number was obviously > 20.
Dead kids don't give them any pause, so perhaps Muslims with guns are the answer.
Oh, fuck, I just realized... That was a seriously bad way of putting it. Or perversely appropriate.
ReplyDeleteIts not like she's a former exterminator suddenly catapulted to political prominence, or a football player....
ReplyDeleteOr a plumber....
Oy, the comments. I just...I mean...I can't...oh fuck it.
ReplyDeleteAnd what are, say, Jonah Goldberg's qualifications to pontificate on anything at all? His mom forgetting to put the sponge in?
ReplyDeleteTotes worth it for href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345985/note-about-gabby-giffords#comment-867360638this:
ReplyDeleteKevin Williamson rokkitman • 19 minutes ago
−
I suppose you'll accede to everything Ronald Reagan ever wanted--he got shot, too. And while we're at it, Pope John Paul II got shot--you're going to be a good Catholic now, right?0
•
Reply
•
Share ›
willi0000000 Kevin Williamson • 2 minutes ago
i will not accede to everything Ronald Reagan ever wanted. i might be willing to give additional weight to his views on gun control because he was shot. victims usually have a unique view of the circumstances.
As governor of California, Ronald Reagan
signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on
your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street,
and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases.
After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady
bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a
7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background
checks on prospective buyers. He urged then President Bush to drop his opposition to the bill.
that, from the Baltimore Sun, last year.
Thanks for this, it gave me a glimmer of hope. [sets down syringe full of horse tranquilizer, contacts post office and has them restart mail delivery]
ReplyDeleteDon't forget, Governor Ronald Reagan was in favor of more gun control because of the Black Panthers (the NRA, too).
ReplyDeleteTake that, James "Handgun Violence Prevention Act" Brady!
ReplyDelete"While Ms. Giffords has my sympathy..." Fuck you; I don't believe it.
ReplyDelete"Return of the Turd", this year on the CW!
ReplyDeleteI applied for a poetic license but failed the background checks.
ReplyDeleteFinally, a little brainteaser:
ReplyDeleteTry to bemoan the use of the word "cowardly" as unworthy of public debate while calling the person "childish" without being one of the biggest dickheaded hypocrites in the history of two consecutive fucking sentences.
This is my first time pay a visit at here and i am genuinely impressed to read all at
ReplyDeletesingle place.
My web blog; Website Here
Although I usually respect Ed Schultz, I listened to him for over two hours today blatting on about how Obama should have "respected" red state Dems and rural "gun culture" folks by asking them what they could support and "working with them" more to craft a bill that would have gotten more Senate votes. The more I pay attention to the issue, the more convinced I am that there was nothing Obama could have done to make the bill more palatable to these people. Thanks to the basic design of the Senate, where states having populations less than Pittsburgh have representation equal to California and New York, nothing will change unless the filibuster rules are changed, we get a Dem House, and a Newtown-type tragedy happens in Bismarck, Pierre, or Missoula. Good on Obama, at least, for calling out the NRA for the liars they are.
ReplyDeleteYeah, someone in the comments there mentioned ad hominem. By Giffords.
ReplyDeleteThat about covers it.
ReplyDelete~
I blame correption.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to hear from the inanimate carbon rod before making a judgment on Goldberg's qualifications.
ReplyDeleteActually, it makes me angrier than ever, especially since that withered old fucking douchebag didn't support the Brady Bill when he WAS President. I had forgotten about that one. God, he was awful.
ReplyDeleteI have a License to Ill, if you want to borrow it.
ReplyDeleteThese maroons never tire of nattering on about protecting themselves from the eeevil gubmint, but don't seem able to comprehend at all the "Well regulated militia" part of the sacred Second Amendment, or the spelling out of the duties of the militia in Article 1, Section 8; which are, for those who slept through high school civics: To execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions.
ReplyDeleteI remember a Malkinjihad from back in the days. Not the first, and of course not the last. IIRC, a group of widows of NY firemen in the wake of 9/11 took issue with the idea that the best way to commemorate the heroism of the firemen was to curtail civil liberties and bomb people in the Middle East, and objected to their loved ones being coopted as backgrounds for recruitment posters.
ReplyDeleteThe Flying Monkeys were invoked and "New York Widows" became a term of abuse in Malkin circles, because again these women were abusing their moral high ground. Moral bullies, SKREEEE.
The central argument was the same... it is not fair for these people to advocate policies with which we disagree, when they have the moral authority to make them unassailable; thus their moral authority is forfeit and it is OK for us to assail them with invective and shit-flinging.
To execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions.
ReplyDeleteWhere's the fun in wanking over that?
Please don't make me think of Goldberg and spongeworthiness at the same time. That way madness lies. And by madness I mean explicit "fan"-fic of Jonahs conception. Don't tempt me.
ReplyDeleteAlmost makes one nostalgic for the days when they were getting bug-eyed over blowjobs, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteAnd that, in a nutshell, is the entire rightwing armamentarium of argument. Whether it's saying that a former congresswoman who was shot in the head has no moral stature to speak about gun violence, or that the widows of victims of mass violence have no moral standing to speak against mass violence, or that the victim of a horrible disease like Parkinson's has no moral authority to speak about stem-cell research, the rightwing reply is always thus.
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess that because Ronnie lived through it, and so did Brady, Reagan saw no need to actually follow through. Then again, who knows if he wasn't already waaaayyy into dementia at that point.
ReplyDeleteIt works this way: Because Giffords was shot, the issue is "too personal" for her and thus disqualifies her opinion. Conversely, anybody who advocates for stricter gun control measure who hasn't been shot has no idea what they're talking about because they've never been shot.
ReplyDeleteKinda makes political argument impossible, but that's a feature, not a bug, as far as Conservatives are concerned.
Kevin Williamson? If I were a really big Dawson's Creek fan I'd be heartbroken!
ReplyDeleteThey're probably using the "I didn't vote for her" dismissal, whether or not they live in her district.
ReplyDeleteYeah, could I? There's a big fight for my right to party coming up.
ReplyDeletesets down syringe full of horse tranquilizer
ReplyDeleteUmm, you gonna finish that?
This is exactly why abortion policies should be determined by men, who have no personal stake and can be trusted to reason objectively.
ReplyDeleteIf "being shot in the head" doesn't give you "special grace to pronounce upon public-policy questions," maybe being a fucking politician for a decade--you know, until she was shot in the head--does.
ReplyDeleteThe review panel are all a buncha synecdouches anyway.
ReplyDeleteFunny you should mention it. There's a reason Reagan supported gun control when he was governor, and it has to do with the Blah Panthers.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing you can say about what Ronald Reagan did that cannot be made worse by something else he did.
already waaaayyy into dementia at that point
ReplyDeleteThe early signs were there, yes.
Just because you've been shot in the head doesn't mean its okay to bleed all over the furniture. Some folks have no manners.
ReplyDeleteI also think that Kevin Williamson should be stripped, scourged, nailed to a cross, and shot a couple of times in the gut.
ReplyDeleteTea bagging the gun nuts.
ReplyDeleteHe has no qualifications. That's what makes him qualified. Otherwise he couldn't be objective.
ReplyDeleteMeaning, asserting opinions regarding something of which they had no personal experience.
ReplyDeleteit should be noted that being shot in the head by a lunatic does not
ReplyDeletegive one any special grace to pronounce upon public-policy questions
. . .nor does putting crosshairs "surveyor's marks" on the aforementioned person's district give you "special grace" to pronounce on anything.
I'd would like to discuss various objectives with this comment while we have dinner at a restaurant with unqualified reservations.
ReplyDeleteTrying to go platinum?
ReplyDeleteMy wingnut Brother: "You were beaten nearly to death with a tire-iron, and I don't hear you calling for tire-iron control!"
ReplyDeleteMe: (trying not to laugh): I would though, if there were an epidemic of tire-iron murders... how many, 10 per day in the USA, plus the occasional massacre? You bet I'd be screaming to outlaw tire-irons. (Brother scowls).
ME: And so would you. You only oppose gun control because you think firearms are a type of "magical talisman" protecting your "freedom" from a Totalitarian government. Wrong!" (we part and go our separate ways).
Nope, they'll just get bigger and worse firearms. Because guns are MAGIC, especially white folks guns. Ask any cowboy in a TV show- their guns had an endless supply of bullets, AND they could kill a person from 20 yards with a revolver. That's good shootin'.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you buy a book of "famous quotes" and insert comments from it? And we'd all be better off. (I recommend Churchill, Lincoln, and Jane Austen)
ReplyDeleteMr. Williamson had his moral license revoked for writing under the influence of a subatomic-sized penis.
ReplyDeleteYes, strange how their placing gunsights over GIffords' district was a harmless joke. But how DARE she speak out against easy access to deadly weapons after being shot with one?
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should suggest that your brother go bear hunting with a tire iron. That'll level the playing field...
ReplyDeleteHi! I'm at work surfing around your blog from my new iphone 3gs! Just wanted to say I love reading your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the superb work!
ReplyDeleteMy weblog golden lab retriever
Hi! I'm at work surfing around your blog from my new iphone 3gs! Just wanted to say I love reading your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the superb work!
ReplyDeleteFeel free to visit my web blog; golden lab retriever
Yes, but he's wrong with such detail and care.
ReplyDeleteThink about the kids you went to high school. That's the mentality of the people who run the world.
ReplyDeleteThis text is invaluable. When can I find out more?
ReplyDeleteAlso visit my web blog - awesome golden labrador retrievers information
"And that the fact that they believe they're going to fight off the
ReplyDeleteawesome power of the US military, with its targeted missiles, drones,
fighter jets, etc etc etc with their little Bushmaster pea shooters
merely indicates the serious depths of their delusion..."
Yeah, the embattled farmers defeated the British Empire with muskets -- which the British Empire soldiers also had -- therefore, today's embattled crazies will be able to defeat the modern U.S. Army with (gasp!) a few AK-47s. The part about being outgunned to the max doesn't seem to register with them. And their "Wolverines!" fantasies are equally stupid, because guerrillas need a sympathetic populace to hide among ... whereas, if it really came to that, the populace would be pretty much united in determination to fuck these assholes up bigtime, because their opponents would be their own people, not some imaginary eeeeevil furriners.
What, they saw Glenn Reynolds getting justifiably condemned and they decided they just had to get in on that action? I liked the National Review crew better when they were only racist, plutocratic assholes.
ReplyDeleteDoes the phrase "object lesson" mean nothing to these people? If the murder victim and their families can't wave the bloody shirt who can?
ReplyDeleteNot much of an influence, then. Or maybe its like negative and/or imaginary numbers--having an effect which ordinary people can't grasp.
ReplyDeleteSnotty petulant arrogance is not an emotional response to a person that wishes one would just shut the f*ck up because only conservatives are "real men". They are the center of the universe and anyone who disagrees with them are just icky and childish.
ReplyDeleteOT: Getting a malware warning on account of prosebeforehos.com.
ReplyDeleteRemoved link. Don't know what happened with them.
ReplyDeleteClearly, Ms. Giffords should have apologized for getting in the gunman's way, like that nice Harry Whittington did with Dick Cheney.
ReplyDeleteThis is why Smut should never be left to his own devices.
ReplyDeleteLiterary devices, that is. (SHUT UP, SMUT!) ;)
there was nothing Obama could have done to make the bill more palatable to these people
ReplyDeleteOh, I dunno - he could have offered to resign if it passed.
big-abq-things.blogspot.com google adsense service for $10
ReplyDeleteAnd don't forget that Hannity was on Fox proclaiming that MLK would be all for gun rights today if he hadn't been, you know, shot dead.
ReplyDeleteI'm conflicted here.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, I agree that being shot in the head by a lunatic doesn't give you "special grace to pronounce upon public policy questions" or "moral license to call people 'cowards'".
On the other hand, that's because you don't need "special grace" or "moral license" to do those things; we live in a democracy. All of us are allowed to have opinions on public policy (and in some cases actually make it by voting on referendums), and we're all allowed to make moral judgments.
It kind of bothers me that Giffords' Op-Ed doesn't actually make a case for her gun control policy. If you disagree with her on policy, that means you have an opening that allows you to rebut her on policy in a setting where you are the one introducing the facts and arguments.
Or you could just ghoulishly complain about the fact that Giffords has opinions. Either way, I guess.
Your style is really unique in comparison to other people I've read stuff from. I appreciate you for posting when you've got the
ReplyDeleteopportunity, Guess I will just bookmark this web site.
my web page ... visit for white goldens stuff
i feel the same way about john mccain.
ReplyDeleteThe effect is not the only thing they can't grasp.
ReplyDeleteAnd what does give one special grace to pronounce upon public policy, then? A byline at a wingnut welfare rag?
ReplyDeleteAn op ed isn't a policy paper--and don't make the mistake of thinking that the decision of her opponents was made on "policy" grounds. What Giffords and the President were pointing out is that the policy issues were thoroughly debated prior to the actual vote and that promises were made of support which various Republicans and the NRA reneged on. That's the cowardice--Senators presumably gave their word on certain amendments or the vote would never, ever, have come up. This battle won't be won logically, it won't be won with measured white papers--its going to be won slowly through the same kind of hyperbole, intolerance, mockery, and hard slogging work that Mother's Against Drunk Driving and the anti smoking lobby used. There's no point arguing logic with these ideologues. We are going to have to destroy them.
ReplyDeleteThere are 30 gun murders per day in the US (11k annually) and about 87 daily gun deaths (murders+accidents+suicides).
ReplyDeleteNRO's shifty bunch would say, "yes!" Which is, sort of, to paraphrase McLuhan, "the podium is the policy."
ReplyDeleteThey have a real nice, snug casual fit and also nothing is compromised.
ReplyDeleteThey are generally noticed on sky boats and runabouts. You'll also find it could be bought cheaper within the internet. Designer apparel is just after all affordable and easily practical for the notable and rich district. http://www.ncsmed.org.fj/index.php?option=com_blog&view=comments&pid=1412111&Itemid=0
Visit my blog ヴィトン バッグ
The next Republican candidate will be Chauncy Gardiner.
ReplyDeleteOr, in this case, "the odium is the policy."
ReplyDeleteIt's not like the British had men to send to the colonies to fight angry tea smugglers. Their real army was needed elsewhere. That's why they hired Hessians.
ReplyDeleteバーバリーカフスの平均小売価格は175ドルです。
ReplyDeleteFeel free to visit my website - 腕時計 バーバリー
Hі there! Sοmеonе in my Fаcebοok
ReplyDeletegroup sharеd this sіte with us so I
cаme to takе а looκ. I'm definitely loving the information. I'm book-marking and wіll bе tωееtіng this to
my followerѕ! Eхсеllent blοg and fantаstic ԁesіgn.
Тake a loоk at mу web site
... just click the next webpage