Condemning Terrorism
Today, there was a terrorist attack at a Virginia baseball field. That's a pretty simple sentence, but so far I haven't seen a whole lot of media reports which start by so clearly identifying what just took place. But the word cannot be shied away from in this fashion, because what just took place was indeed terrorism. The only other possible term would be "guerrilla warfare against the United States," but that doesn't really seem to fit a lone individual.
Members of the United States government were shot at, with the clear intent to kill them (thankfully, as of this writing the only person who is reported dead is the shooter). If we were currently facing a rebellious movement in the country (such as the guerrilla warfare the Irish Republican Army waged on Britain) then a case could be made that members of the government are military targets. But there is no guerrilla warfare currently being waged, so that argument is not even possible. This was a lone-wolf attack, plain and simple.
It was an attack launched by a terrorist. It was the use of violence to further political goals, which is a pretty functional definition of the term. The gunman reportedly worked for the Bernie Sanders campaign and asked if the ball team practicing was made up of Republicans or Democrats. If it had been a Democratic team, perhaps the outcome would have been different. Or perhaps not. The gunman is dead, so he won't be offering up any sort of explanation for his violent behavior, one way or another. But, as reported, it is impossible not to call the gunman a terrorist.
What I found sad and ironic was that only a few days ago, the United States Navy christened the U.S.S. Gabrielle Giffords, a ship named for the victim of a previous incident of a deranged person shooting a member of Congress. That gunman acted from different political motives (Giffords is a Democrat), but it was also terrorism. There is violence of this sort from both sides of the aisle, we'd all do well to remember now. The U.S.S. Gabrielle Giffords was so named to remind us, and perhaps in a few years we'll also have the U.S.S. Steve Scalise to remind us of today's attack.
Of course, this incident will spark another round of the gun control debate, but I don't expect much to change as a result. If Sandy Hook and the attack on Gabrielle Giffords couldn't spur Congress to act, today's incident likely won't either.
The only possible result would only come about if the shooter had been declared incompetent to manage his own finances. I say this not because I have any proof that this is true (there hasn't been a hint of it in the media), but because of what Congress did a few months ago:
President Trump signed a measure into law Tuesday that rescinds an Obama-era rule aimed at blocking gun sales to certain mentally ill people.
The GOP-majority Senate passed the bill by a 57-43 margin earlier this month, following a House vote to overturn the rule.
The Obama administration policy "would have required the Social Security Administration to report the records of some mentally ill beneficiaries to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System," as The Two-Way has reported. "Those who have been deemed mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs -- roughly 75,000 people -- would have been affected by the rule."
If today's shooter falls into that category (which, to be clear, nobody has yet even suggested), then perhaps Republicans in Congress might revisit the issue. Perhaps not, though.
As many have pointed out over the past decade or so, this is really the "new normal." When a person takes it into their heads to kill -- whether discriminately or indiscriminately -- we get a new tragedy. The pace of these tragedies seems to have increased, but their regularity is now sadly a part of the American fabric.
But such shootings fall into multiple categories. Shooters sometimes vent their rage on specific and personal targets (such as a boss or spouse) and anyone else in their near vicinity. Sometimes the targets don't even matter, when a shooter is so irrational that they are merely drawn to the act of killing lots of people at random. Other times, however, the shooter has a political purpose. These are acts of political terrorism.
It does not matter what the gunman's views are. It does not matter if they are anti-abortion or religiously-motivated or act out of a misguided sense of partisanship. In the end, it's all terrorism. It doesn't matter whether the targets are doctors who perform abortions, or members of the U.S. military, or members of Congress. It's all terrorism.
The mainstream news media gets confused over this, but they really shouldn't. "Terrorism" is supposed to mean (by their definition, going on when they use the term) international terrorism, usually Muslim. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. So is the Islamic State. Lone-wolf terrorist attacks in America are usually also identified correctly, when Islam is the motivating factor. Sometimes the term "domestic terrorism" is used, but in different ways. But homegrown politically-motivated acts of violence somehow cause the media to shy away from the terrorism label for some inexplicable reason.
Make no mistake about it, though, what happened today was an act of terrorism. So was shooting Gabby Giffords. So was the Oklahoma City bombing. All such acts of terrorism should be denounced in no uncertain terms by American politicians without regard to the partisan views of the terrorist. Bernie Sanders has already forcefully done so. Republicans did so as well, after the Giffords shooting. This is the correct response -- universal and unequivocal rejection of terrorism to further any political ideology.
For whatever it is worth, I add my own voice to this chorus. Shooting people who don't agree with you politically is wrong and abhorrent. It has no place in our society, or in our politics. I say this today about someone who reportedly supported the same presidential candidate I did last year, and I would say this (and have said it) for any supporter of any other politician without regard to party. Threats, violence, and deadly force cannot be tolerated in politics in any way, shape, or form. Because to do so is to support terrorism. Period.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
agreed. terrorism is wrong, regardless of the purported cause.
Yeah, killing people for a political motive is terrorism unless it is the IRA, then it is a guerrilla war.
Check your mirror Chris.
Oh, and BTW you know my last name and that I'm 1/4 Irish Catholic - not the Irish Catholic nonsense that Americans claim because somebody came over from Ireland 125 years ago, but Irish like somebody who immigrated here in person, you know the difference.
My family span both sides of the Irish chasm - my baptism was such a battle that my mother refused to baptize my little sister. I would go to Ulster and visit both sides of the family, and thankfully my generation abhorred the stupidity of both their parents' generations - they simply condemned terrorism on both sides regardless and spat on excuses like "guerrilla warfare" and "history" - and I'm proud of them for it.
My generation of relatives who lived on the island wanted their kids to grow up safe - none of them went to church anyway so the whole divide was pointless.
BTW, if you want to see a good representation of the DUP (you know, the !@#$ $%^&* #$%%^ #$%^7's that Teresa May just got into bed with) here is a hilarious video that explains them to a T.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEsFtiruIok
(From TCCWN). goode trickle [83] & altohone [88]
I appreciate the condolences. Thank you. Al, I look forward to hearing the story!
-Russ
Mueller's going after 45 on obstruction.
Based on the people Mueller has hired, my best guess is that he is looking for a motive in the debt structure of 45's businesses.
This is going to get interesting. And if 45 tries to fire Mueller things will get even more interesting. I'm waiting for CW to determine if 45 even has the power to do such a thing, but my reading of he situation is that he can order Rosenstein to do it, and either Rosenstein agrees or he will be fired, and I presume a stooge will replace him who will carry out the order.
CW,
How is this shooting an act of terrorism? Are the violent actions of someone possibly suffering from mental illness deserving of such a label? If we are going to define acts of violence like today's as "terrorism" without bothering to learn the attackers motives and/or mental state, then politicians are being seen as a "special class", is that it? Depending on the condition of person's mental state, legitimizing their claimed "motivations" may only do more damage to everyone.
The danger in labeling this as "terrorism" is that it causes us to ignore the mental illness aspect of this crime. If we call this person a "terrorist" and he was mentally ill, as early reports are pointing to as being the case, then we risk dismissing the issues that led to this event in favor of political rhetoric.
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) contains a definition of terrorism, which reads:
Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom. Terrorists often use threats to:
-Create fear among the public.
-Try to convince citizens that their government is powerless to prevent terrorism.
-Get immediate publicity for their causes.
I just do not think we can call this an "act of terrorism" so quickly simply because it involved politicians.
Hey CW
Good, solid post.
I don't want to cause any, er, um, troubles, but neil made a point worth considering.
Americans owe their reality to violent resistance after non-violent resistance and diplomacy failed, but the alternate reality where we persisted on a peaceful path is interesting to consider... and it too could have resulted in independence. Perhaps a peaceful process would have resulted in generations of suffering and the dying out of whole lineages, but perhaps not to the same extent as the war for independence.
Our planet is filled with examples of people and countries who fought bitterly for their self determination, and only a few examples where it was achieved through (mostly) nonviolent means.
I'd like to think that the latter approach would be adopted as the better path more and more often... and maybe some extra sensitivity for the conflicts that began with violence but ended through diplomacy can help make that happen?
Unfortunately, the example of turning the other cheek didn't work out well for certain Native Americans and hasn't worked out well in Tibet, and it's hard to imagine a successful sales pitch along those lines for the people overrun by ISIS, or Palestinians, or any number of other examples... but I'd like to think the proponents of violence may one day be a dying breed.
Dang it CW and neil!
If I can't sleep tonight because you got me thinkin...
A
I concur with the statements of CW and everyone else in condemning the scumbag who perpetrated this terroristic act, and add my own appreciation for the Capitol police and members of Scalise's security detail who reportedly rushed in to engage the shooter. I hope they're all able to see this asshole buried.
And for the record, I want to see every Republican Representative, Senator, or Administration official live long natural lives, so that when they are very old and surrounded by loved ones, they can tell the story of just what a pure and unmitigated disaster the Trump Administration was, and to warn coming generations against making the same awful mistake. Sincerely, that would be good.
Listen
7
I just went off on a tangent, but I was going to raise some objections along those lines as well.
I'm of two minds on the matter (for once), and to mix metaphors, I lean from one side of the fence to the other depending on circumstances and mood... so I'll just add two thoughts to the discussion.
First, the US government definition never seems to apply to actions by anybody or any agency of the US government... even when our government causes clear terror here and abroad that fit their own definition.
Second, the examples of the FBI launching sting operations post-9/11 where feeble minded individuals were encouraged and incentivized to say and do things, and then supplied with the (fake) means to commit terror, and then arrested and prosecuted and called terrorists come to mind.
Terrorism is both an overused term, and in some of the cases of domestic terrorism cited by CW, underused.
I hope the discussion continues here and elsewhere.
A
Hey CW and gang
Off topic, but for a view of the lighter side of life
An interview with Zephyr Teachout
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19328:Zephyr-Teachout-On-Why-Primarying-Right-Wing-Democrats-Is-Necessary
Have a good night all.
A
Our planet is filled with examples of people and countries who fought bitterly for their self determination, and only a few examples where it was achieved through (mostly) nonviolent means.
To the contrary, Al, Obama used to point out all the time that, in the whole span of history, more territory was liberated for a longer time through peaceful means than was ever liberated through war.
In our lifetimes we've seen two of the most villainous regimes, Apartheid South Africa and the Soviet Union collapse non-violently, to our great surprise and relief.
Outcomes are not guaranteed, however. Russia is an example of democratic promise gone sideways, as is Egypt (and everywhere else affected by the 'Arab Spring'). Some non-violent revolutions are ultimately just coups that simply trade one set of autocrats for another (for example Egypt and Iran). It happens.
neilm
6
Mueller's going after 45 on obstruction.
Happy birthday, Mr. President
Happy birthday to you ;)
If it had been a Democratic team, perhaps the outcome would have been different. Or perhaps not.
OH come on, CW...
That's like Balthy claiming it was all a big coincidence..
If there had been the Dim team on the field, the scumbag Democrat shooter would have gone home...
For whatever it is worth, I add my own voice to this chorus. Shooting people who don't agree with you politically is wrong and abhorrent.
Just as hitting people with a chain who don't agree with you politically is wrong and abhorrent..
Yet no one here condemned THAT act..
Why??
Because the perp had a -D after their name and the victim was a Trump supporter...
The Left had a chance to nip this in the bud when this was all just assaults and name-calling..
The Left chose to not only ignore it but to encourage it with faux beheadings and assassination plays in the park..
Well, now the shooting has started and there is no going back...
If it had been a Democratic team, perhaps the outcome would have been different. Or perhaps not.
OH come on, CW...
That's like Balthy claiming it was all a big coincidence..
If there had been the Dim team on the field, the scumbag Democrat shooter would have gone home...
For whatever it is worth, I add my own voice to this chorus. Shooting people who don't agree with you politically is wrong and abhorrent.
Just as hitting people with a chain who don't agree with you politically is wrong and abhorrent..
Yet no one here condemned THAT act..
Why??
Because the perp had a -D after their name and the victim was a Trump supporter...
The Left had a chance to nip this in the bud when this was all just assaults and name-calling..
The Left chose to not only ignore it but to encourage it with faux beheadings and assassination plays in the park..
Well, now the shooting has started and there is no going back...
Neil,
Mueller's going after 45 on obstruction.
No.. Mueller's going to be fired..
He promised to run an honorable investigation with NO LEAKS..
Well, he has barely gotten started and the leaks have been sprung..
Which proves this is nothing but a partisan witch hunt..
Rosenstein will obey Trump's order and fire Mueller..
You heard it here first..
JL,
second, taking a terrorist attack and treating it as if it were a partisan issue is way out of line.
No... Calling Republicans terrorists simply for a partisan disagreement is way out of line.
Something that was a common occurrence here in Weigantia...
Taking a scumbag Democrat shooting and calling it what it is, is simply stating the facts...
Russ,
Both of your definitions you list are not valid because they are subjective...
Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian/non-combatant persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda.
This Democrat scumbag shooters attack fully qualifies for the label of Terrorism...
A member of the Democrat Party, with the full encouragement of the Left Wingery, has committed an act of terrorism against the United States...
CW is dead on ballz accurate to call this what it is...
A cowardly act of terrorism by a Bernie supporter...
This scumbag's association as a Democrat is not a CASUAL link, it's a CAUSAL link...
People reap what they sow...
And this is what the Left Wing and the Democrat Party has sown...
I know, I know.. Cue the indignant cries of "IT'S NOT OUR FAULT!!" and the impotent Party zealotry cries of "THAT'S SUCH BULLSHIT!!!"
The facts are clear.. This incident is simply a natural progression.. The next step in the war that the Left has waged against the legal and legitimately elected President Of The United States...
Altohone,
First, the US government definition never seems to apply to actions by anybody or any agency of the US government... even when our government causes clear terror here and abroad that fit their own definition.
Causing terror is not 'terrorism'..
If it were, the producers of BLAIR WITCH PROJECT would have been hauled down to GITMO...
Neil,
Yeah, killing people for a political motive is terrorism unless it is the IRA, then it is a guerrilla war.
Change "killing" to "attacking" and you would be accurate...
Giving an exception to the IRA is only valid if the IRA had limited itself to military or combatant targets.
To the best of my knowledge, the IRA did NOT limit themselves in such a way so their exception is not valid...
Given all the unrestrained hate and fear-mongering coming from the Left, all the name-calling and attacks, both verbal and physical, directed towards Trump supporters and the Right in general, given all the tacit approval and encouragement by the Left for all of the afore..
Is anyone really surprised that a Democrat scumbag shooter would take the next step and start shooting Republicans??
And the facts clearly show that many on the Left support and encourage such things...
This is the world the Left's unrestrained anti-Trump and anti-GOP hatred has created..
Congrats, Lefties.. You have your shooting war... I don't think the Left will like where it ends, because many on the Right will shoot back.. As this Democrat scumbag shooter found out...
Democrats may be horrified by today’s attempted massacre of the GOP House baseball team by an avowed progressive, but their incendiary demands for “massive resistance” since November have been an open plea for the escalation of words into violent action. The daily repetition that President Trump is an illegitimate usurper who stole the election through collusion with foreign powers has been a hypnotic incantation in search of an Oswald: a siren call for an assassin.
At the Women’s March on Washington the day after Trump’s inauguration, Angela Davis’s appeal for militancy was met with cheers. “Over the next months and years we will be called upon to intensify our demands for social justice to become more militant in our defense of vulnerable populations,” announced Davis, who in 1970 bought the shotgun used two days later to murder a judge. “Those who still defend the supremacy of white male hetero-patriarchy had better watch out,” she concluded. At the same event, pop legend Madonna spoke about her fantasies of “blowing up the White House.”
And ya'all are SURPRISED and "shocked" that some Democrat nutjob would see these "calls to action" and NOT act!???
Trump’s opponents in the media, academia, and politics can pretend that their calls for radical action were meant metaphorically or in a nonviolent sense. But they are the ones who opened this box of fear, panic, and rage. Let them take responsibility for the climate that now exists.
Yea, like THAT will happen anytime soon...
Lefties are already blaming the gun....
Democrats NEVER miss an opportunity to duck responsibility...
Interesting to note..
If Rep Scalise hadn't been there, there would have been NO ONE armed at that practice...
It would have been a massacre save for two good people with guns....
Think about THAT then next time ya want to go on an on about the evils of guns.....
Shooting At GOP Baseball Practice Latest In Pattern Of Violence Against Republicans
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/shooting-at-gop-baseball-practice-latest-in-pattern-of-violence-against-republicans/
This shooting is simply the latest (and most horrendous to date) act of violence committed by Left Wingers against Trump supports and the Right in general...
Can ANYONE logically and rationally be shocked by this??
Considering all the hateful rhetoric and calls to violence from the Left, one who is not consumed by Party loyalty would have to say that this sort of escalation was inevitable...
I am so incensed by this, I am starting to repeat myself.. :D
Time ta take a break... :D
OK Deep breath initiated.. :D
CW, I have to commend you.. I was remiss in that before..
I applaud the fact that you condemn this act in no uncertain terms. Calling it what it is was also very welcome to see... At least, with you, I know you are being sincere....
So, Kudos...
{wipes brown stuff off nose}
Having said that, let me say this..
In a minute.... Wife's ready to go... :D
Having said that, let me say this..
In condemning this current act of terrorism, one has to wonder what it would take to get the Left to condemn lesser acts that are no less terrorism..
The riots at Berkeley... The attacks by Left Wingers on Trump supporters...
If the Left had condemned THOSE acts as forcefully as they condemn this shooting, perhaps there wouldn't have BEEN a shooting...
It's time.... it's PAST time to condemn ALL acts of violence, regardless of Party loyalty..
And I don't mean just a blanket traffic cop on valium ho-hum what's on TV now condemnation any time the matter comes up.. I am talking about a real and forceful condemnation along the lines of this commentary *EVERYTIME* there is a violent attack...
If THAT were to occur then it's entirely possible... even LIKELY, that we won't have to condemn ANY American on American terrorism...
Just a thought....
But I know I am just pissing in the wind on this..
Haters gotta hate...
second, taking a terrorist attack and treating it as if it were a partisan issue is way out of line.
Ya mean like when the Left did with the Dylan Roof shooting???
The Sandy Hook shooting??
The Oregon Shooting??
The list is endless of the Left taking a tragic shooting and making it into a partisan issue. Often times, even before the bodies were counted up...
As a matter of fact, the *ONLY* time that the Left *DOESN'T* want to make it into a partisan issue, the *ONLY* time that the Left cries for unity instead of pointing fingers are the times when the Left is clearly and unequivocally culpable...
But, tell ya what.. Next time there is a mass shooting here in the US where it's clearly and unequivocally a Right Winger and the GOP agenda is clearly and unequivocally at fault???
I'll join with ANYONE here who *DOESN'T* want to make it a partisan issue...
Think I'll have any takers?? I bet I won't...
? David Frum, senior editor for the Atlantic, called for background checks, gun licensing and registration, long gun permits, limits on magazine size, and restrictions on open carrying of guns.
? Windsor Mann, a columnist for USA Today, blamed “easy access to deadly weapons.”
? Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe blamed the attack on “too many guns” and immediately called for more gun control.
Tell me again how *I* am the one who is treating this terrorist attack as a partisan issue???
I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS to the contrary..
HATE is not a partisan issue.. It should be universally condemned by each and every one of us AS IT OCCURS....
Had Hillary won, everyone would have expected disappointed Trump voters to show a modicum of respect for the electoral results as well as for the historic ceremony of the inauguration, during which former combatants momentarily unite to pay homage to the peaceful transition of power in our democracy. But that was not the reaction of a vast cadre of Democrats shocked by Trump's win. In an abject failure of leadership that may be one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the modern Democratic party, Chuck Schumer, who had risen to become the Senate Democratic leader after the retirement of Harry Reid, asserted absolutely no moral authority as the party spun out of control in a nationwide orgy of rage and spite. Nor were there statesmanlike words of caution and restraint from two seasoned politicians whom I have admired for decades and believe should have run for president long ago—Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. How do Democrats imagine they can ever expand their electoral support if they go on and on in this self-destructive way, impugning half the nation as vile racists and homophobes?
-Camille Paglia
This from a registered Democrat.....
Of course {President Trump's} rousing speech (with its can-do World War Two spirit) got scant coverage in the mainstream media. Drunk with words, spin, and snark, middle-class journalists can't be bothered to notice the complex physical constructions that make modern civilization possible. The laborers who build and maintain these marvels are recognized only if they can be shoehorned into victim status. But if they dare to think for themselves and vote differently from their liberal overlords, they are branded as rubes and pariahs.
In summary: to have any hope of retaking the White House, Democrats must get off their high horse, lose the rabid rhetoric, and reorient themselves toward practical reality and the free country they are damned lucky to live in.
Word...........
I can always tell when I have ya'all on the ropes, punch drunk and ready to collapse.... :D
I am the only one commenting... :D
Three accounts concerning the Scalise shooting that keep bouncing around in my head. To me, they illustrate the perpetual motion machine that is US gun violence.
Account 1) Congressman Scalise's wounds are much more grievous than initial press reports implied.
Source: MedStar Washington Hospital release
Congressman Steve Scalise sustained a single rifle shot to the left hip. The bullet travelled across his pelvis, fracturing bones, injuring internal organs, and causing severe bleeding. He was transported in shock to MedStar Washington Hospital Center, a Level I Trauma Center. He underwent immediate surgery, and an additional procedure to stop bleeding. He has received multiple units of blood transfusion. His condition is critical, and he will require additional operations.
Account 2) Congressman Scalise's stated position on gun rights
Source: Congressman Scalise's web site
A strong supporter of the Second Amendment, Scalise has sponsored and cosponsored legislation protecting citizens' right to keep and bear arms. In the 112th Congress, Scalise introduced H.R. 58, the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act, which improves law-abiding citizens' ability to purchase firearms. The bills Scalise has recently cosponsored include H.R.645, a bill to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia and the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, H.R.822, which would ensure national reciprocity for concealed carry permit holders. Congressman Scalise's pro-gun stance has earned him an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association. A member of the Congressional Second Amendment Task Force, Congressman Steve Scalise will continue fighting to protect every citizen's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Account 3) The shooter had a substantial history of violent behavior involving intimidation AND fire arms.
Source: WAPO
Over the years, Hodgkinson has had multiple scrapes with local police and disputes with neighbors, records show.
Police most recently encountered Hodgkinson on March 24, when the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department received a phone call reporting about 50 shots “in the pine trees” in a lightly populated area near Belleville.
The deputy who responded found that Hodgkinson had a valid firearm license and advised Hodgkinson “to not discharge his weapon in the area.” Hodgkinson apparently complied.
Federal agents are trying to track the purchase history of a rifle and a handgun involved in Wednesday’s shooting.
In April 2006, police records show Hodgkinson went to a neighbor’s house looking for his daughter and “used bodily force to damage” a wooden door upstairs. Witnesses said Hodgkinson forced his way into the home looking for his teenage daughter and grabbed her by the hair when he found her upstairs, according to a police narrative on file with St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department.
His daughter escaped and got into the neighbor’s car, but Hodgkinson opened the door of the car, pulled out a pocket knife and cut off the seat belt she was wearing, records show. Hodgkinson’s wife joined him, struggling to pull out their daughter, as Hodgkinson punched the neighbor who was in the driver’s seat of the car in the face, witnesses told police.
Later, Joel Fernandez, the boyfriend of the woman who was punched, went to Hodgkinson’s home to confront him. He said Hodgkinson “walked outside with a shotgun and aimed it at Fernandez face,” a complaint states. Hodgkinson struck Fernandez on the side of his face with the wooden stock of the shotgun and fired off one round as Fernandez ran away.
Police arrested Hodgkinson and his wife and charged them with domestic battery and aggravated discharge of a firearm, according to a narrative obtained by The Washington Post. Police also recovered a 12-gauge shotgun. The county clerk’s online database shows the charges were later dismissed.
A few months later, police were called to an argument with a neighbor after Hodgkinson “accidentally struck her dog while it was sleeping in the roadway,” record show. Hodgkinson made multiple complaints about neighbors damaging his lawn by driving through it.
NYT Uses GOP Shooting To Falsely Attack Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/nyt-uses-gop-shooting-to-falsely-attack-sarah-palin-with-debunked-conspiracy-theory/
I remember the reaction from Weigantians over this blatant politicization of a tragic shooting...
It was a reaction of complete and unequivocal support for this blatant and utterly bullshit accusation...
And let's not forget.. It was Odumbo himself who blatantly stated that Democrats "MUST POLITICIZE THESE TRAGEDIES!!"
So if ya want to look at who politicizes these tragedies for political gain??
Look no further than your own Democrat Party...
Michale,
Congrats, Lefties.. You have your shooting war... I don't think the Left will like where it ends, because many on the Right will shoot back
I love that you made a threat of violence while berating everyone else for not speaking out against people using threatening language! Seriously, there are no words that could better or more accurately demonstrate the brazen alter of hypocrisy that you worship at than this!
Calling everyone else out for turning a tragedy into a partisan blame game while doing it yourself; my God that is just so pathetic!
I love that you made a threat of violence while berating everyone else for not speaking out against people using threatening language!
Self-defense is not threatening language...
Calling everyone else out for turning a tragedy into a partisan blame game while doing it yourself; my God that is just so pathetic!
No, what is pathetic is that ya'all try to duck the responsibility of turning every shooting/tragedy such as this into a partisan blame game..
The *ONLY* time ya'all DON'T want to play the blame game is when it's the Democrat Party and you Lefties who are to blame..
THAT is pathetic...
It was your own Odumbo who stated that Democrats MUST politicize these tragedies...
So, look in the mirror if you want to see who is guilty of politicizing these tragedies...
Both of your definitions you list are not valid because they are subjective...
Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian/non-combatant persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda.
This Democrat scumbag shooters attack fully qualifies for the label of Terrorism...
"My" definitions come from the government. They are quite valid.
What proof do you have to support your claim that this shooting was politically motivated?
I know that seems like an odd question, unless you remember that It was about one year ago that you told me that I was wrong to claim that the Orlando shooting was an act of self-loathing, homophobic violence despite multiple witnesses claiming to have seen the shooter at the club multiple times in the past and reports of his father's disdain for gays.
You said it a terrorist attack against the U.S. by an Islamic extremist that just happened to occur at a gay club.
So please, share with me how you know that this wasn't just another terrorist attack against the U.S. that just happened to occur at a ball field the GOP was practicing at?
I can always tell when I have ya'all on the ropes, punch drunk and ready to collapse.... :D
I am the only one commenting... :D
silence gives assent? not in this lifetime.
suggesting a response via policy positions on gun control is not even in the same universe as claiming that "A member of the Democrat Party, with the full encouragement of the Left Wingery, has committed an act of terrorism against the United States..."
if it feels like you're the only one commenting, perhaps it's because your comments are too offensive to merit a response.
JL
if it feels like you're the only one commenting, perhaps it's because your comments are too offensive to merit a response.
Indeed.
"My" definitions come from the government. They are quite valid.
They are quite valid for assessing the law here in the United States.... But they are not valid because they are subjective... They rely on the definition of unlawful which is a subjective definition..
What proof do you have to support your claim that this shooting was politically motivated?
Yer kidding, right??
The Democrat scumbag shooter asked if it were Democrats or Republicans on the field immediately before the shots rang out..
The scumbag Democrat shooter has a history of violence and belonged to several anti-GOP groups..
Did you ask these kinds of questions in the immediate aftermath of the Dylan Roof shooting??
No you did not..
Why??
Because it was a Right wing shooter and you didn't care about anything THEN but assigning blame against the entirety of the Right Wing..
You said it a terrorist attack against the U.S. by an Islamic extremist that just happened to occur at a gay club.
And I, as is per the norm in these cases, was dead on ballz accurate...
So please, share with me how you know that this wasn't just another terrorist attack against the U.S. that just happened to occur at a ball field the GOP was practicing at?
Because of the afore mentioned FACTS in the previous commentary....
There is also evidence that the scumbag Democrat shooter specifically targeted Scalise due to a previous run-in.. Trying to locate that source of information.. I am not sure if it was thru public media links or not...
I'll post it when I find it..
OK, found it... It's of no evidentiary value so I retract the claim that the scumbag Democrat terrorist specifically targeted Scalise due to a previous run-in..
The Democrat scumbag shooter asked if it were Democrats or Republicans on the field immediately before the shots rang out..
The scumbag Democrat shooter has a history of violence and belonged to several anti-GOP groups..
And that, in ya'all's eyes, would be MORE than enough evidence to convict any Right Winger....
What do you want, Michale, a medal or a chest to pin it on?
@russ,
it's always tough when a family member passes, whether that member is of the two or four-legged variety. sorry for your loss.
JL
Nypoet-38
"it's because your comments are too offensive to merit a response."
Exactly.
Sophistry is not discussion. The best response is nothing. Cut off the oxygen and let him ferment in his little Mason Jar.
What do you want, Michale, a medal or a chest to pin it on?
I have ample man-boobs, so a medal would be nice.. :D
Seriously, though..
How about a simple, "That's a very good point, Michale.. Kudos..."
JL,
silence gives assent? not in this lifetime.
I would acknowledge that if it were applied fairly and impartially..
But it only seems to be applied ideologically..
if it feels like you're the only one commenting, perhaps it's because your comments are too offensive to merit a response.
Oh puulleeeeezzee.. When it comes to "offensive" comments, I am FAR from the only guilty party in that regard..
Now, if you are claiming that my "offensive" comments are practically the only ones that are targeted, then yes.. You are dead on ballz accurate in that assessment.....
suggesting a response via policy positions on gun control is not even in the same universe as claiming that
Of course, in YOUR opinion, it isn't..
And THAT is because you agree with the whole gun control premise and reject the idea that Democrats can be hateful and hurtful and violent and intolerant...
irrespective of his terrorist attack, i don't see how it's such a partisan issue to suggest that repeat criminal offenders like hodgkinson should not be allowed to own a gun.
he was no upstanding citizen, he'd been arrested multiple times for DUI and other sundry offenses that had nothing to do with his political affiliation. forget the rest of the gun control debate, how about we just don't let CRIMINALS have guns?
JL
Oh puulleeeeezzee.. When it comes to "offensive" comments, I am FAR from the only guilty party in that regard..
perhaps, but you're the only offensive commenter to assert that because we don't feel like engaging in your BS the rest of us must therefore agree with you.
JL
Neilm-6
"Based on the people Mueller has hired, my best guess is that he is looking for a motive in the debt structure of 45's businesses."
Tried and true. Worked on Al Capone....and Al never Twittered.
Neilm-6
Another thing. There is no 5th Amendment when it comes to documents.
Michale,
Why not just avoid making unsubstantiated claims. That way you won't have to go around apologizing or retracting ...
@ts,
i think you're putting the cart before the horse on this investigation. mueller is investigating thoroughly, as one would expect someone with his credentials to do. to me, it's fully possible that none of donald's missteps were illegal. wasn't it you who first referred us to trump's razor?
JL
Liz,
Why not just avoid making unsubstantiated claims. That way you won't have to go around apologizing or retracting
Seriously!!!????
The entire discussion about Trump from ya'all is based on unsubstantiated claims..
No one seems to have a problem with unsubstantiated claims then!!
But THAT is exactly my point..
JL points out my "offensive" comments, but more often than not (credit where credit is due, he has been known to, on RARE occasions, to take someone else to task for offensive comments) gives a pass to ideologically acceptable comments that are offensive..
You slap me :D about unsubstantiated claims yet are completely silent when entire debates are based on NOTHING but unsubstantiated claims...
Is a little consistency too much to ask????
JL,
perhaps, but you're the only offensive commenter to assert that because we don't feel like engaging in your BS the rest of us must therefore agree with you.
You misunderstand me completely and unequivocally..
I am not saying that you agree with me when ya'all retreat to ya'all's safe spaces..
I know that ya'all would rather chew on broken glass immersed in 90% pure rubbing alcohol rather than agree with me... :D
I am saying that, when ya'all cede the thread to me, it's because ya'all have no logical or rational counter-argument with in which to dispute my claims..
Hence the oft-visited "debate" regarding my posting style... :D
The simple fact is that the hateful and hurtful and violent rhetoric that has been coming from the Left is directly linked to the scumbag Democrat terrorist that gunned down Republicans...
Now, if you would like to debate THAT, rather than my posting style....
"I am all ears"
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates
Having said that, I'll be off the grid for an hour or so to reinstall my windows here at work.. :(
So don't think that lack of response is indicative of lack of desire :D
JL,
to me, it's fully possible that none of donald's missteps were illegal.
And, once again, credit where credit is due....
:D
@michale,
your offensive posts are more likely to be noticed because there are much more of them. what you perceive as hypocrisy is really just a question of volume.
JL
I am saying that, when ya'all cede the thread to me, it's because ya'all have no logical or rational counter-argument with in which to dispute my claims...
more like there's not enough rational basis for the claim to be even considered. your oft-repeated claim that your opinions are "the facts" doesn't leave any room for rational discussion, so people give up trying to engage. consider it a testament to your winning personality that some of us are still willing to discuss a few of your less outlandish arguments.
JL
i agree with the senate's decision to impose sanctions on russia for their interference in our election. regardless of whether or not the trump campaign cooperated/colluded, it's important that putin does not benefit from his decision to attack our election process. i for one am glad that both major parties are firm in this stance.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/14/senate-overwhelmingly-votes-to-impose-new-sanctions-on-russia-over-election-meddling.html
NY-54
I completely agree with the possibility that Trump may have committed no crime. That said, if you are the prosecutor tasked with looking for criminal behavior, then business records are great place to start. Especially when investigating a guy tied to about a bizillion different businesses. Records are a reliable horse, and I think in the correct position relative to the cart.
Trump's razor? Don't recall that one myself, but my memory is less than perfect.
JL,
more like there's not enough rational basis for the claim to be even considered.
If thats how ya want to spin it.. :D
your oft-repeated claim that your opinions are "the facts" doesn't leave any room for rational discussion, so people give up trying to engage.
Again, you spin my facts as opinions... My facts are my facts and my opinions are my opinions and nay the two shall meet.. :D
your offensive posts are more likely to be noticed because there are much more of them. what you perceive as hypocrisy is really just a question of volume.
Again, however you want to justify the unjustifiable...
You let Paula get away with so much bullshit and bigotry and call me on practically every point I make..
It's hard to take things seriously when it's so blatantly Party biased...
But I still like ya, so that's something.. :D
@ts,
the stupidest explanation is usually the right one.
JL
Balthy,
Palin was criticized because, prior to the shooting, she'd posted a map of 'targeted' congressmen, including Giffords, using 'crosshairs' (like gun sights) to indicate their districts. She reacted to this criticism by posting on Twitter: "'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!'", which, I guess was her way of calming everything down.
Yes, Palin was criticized in the IMMEDIATE aftermath of the Giffords shooting. NO ONE on the Left waited for any sort of FACTS to start pointing fingers at the Right...
And NOW you get all indignant when a Democrat scumbag terrorist who is a Bernie volunteer guns down Republicans and people on the Right and in the middle point out, "Hmmmmm Maybe the Left Wing should tone down some of it's hateful and violent rhetoric, eh??"
Talk about ducking responsibility... :^/
Again, you spin my facts as opinions... My facts are my facts and my opinions are my opinions and nay the two shall meet.. :D
there's no need to spin, you claim your opinions to be facts on a regular basis, including at least three times in this column:
1. "scumbag democrat" - calling someone a scumbag is an opinion, not a fact.
2. "This incident is simply a natural progression" - that's an inference, which is a kind of opinion, not a kind of fact.
3. "many on the Left support and encourage such things..." - whether statements constitute support and encouragement are opinions, not facts.
and that's just TODAY.
You let Paula get away with so much bullshit and bigotry and call me on practically every point I make..
again, you're misinterpreting silence as assent, or letting someone "get away with" whatever BS they happen to post. if i respond to something, it means i think there may be some value in doing so. if i don't respond to something, it means i don't see the value in doing so. also, paula generally posts only once or twice consecutively, while your norm is more in the twelve to fifteen range.
JL
1. "scumbag democrat" - calling someone a scumbag is an opinion, not a fact.
2. "This incident is simply a natural progression" - that's an inference, which is a kind of opinion, not a kind of fact.
3. "many on the Left support and encourage such things..." - whether statements constitute support and encouragement are opinions, not facts.
OK, if THAT is the criteria ya want to use, I'll apply that to ya'all's statements and we'll see how many of ya'all's statements are "fact"..
Deal?? :D
. also, paula generally posts only once or twice consecutively, while your norm is more in the twelve to fifteen range.
Ahhhh So being a Party bigot is perfectly acceptable if it's in moderation...
Gotcha {wink, wink} :D
But, once again, everything is about...
It's a good thing I give ya so much fodder... Else you would actually have to address the FACTS!!! :D
But, since we're talking about me... :D
1. "scumbag democrat" - calling someone a scumbag is an opinion, not a fact.
Actually, it's a FACT that the scumbag shooter was a Democrat...
You see how biased you are?? You don't even give me any credit for the FACT... You have two words, one is fact and one is fact-based...
Yet, you don't give ANY credit for the FACT part of my statement which is 50% of the statement..
You see what I am up against.. Ideologically based bias....
2. "This incident is simply a natural progression" - that's an inference, which is a kind of opinion, not a kind of fact.
It's a conclusion, not an opinion or a fact...
And it's a logical and rational conclusion based on the FACTS, therefore it's a fact-based conclusion...
And, since you haven't offered ANY OTHER FACTS to counter my fact-based conclusion, then it stands...
I get it.. It's much easier to attack the messenger than to refute the fact-based conclusions and fact-based opinions...
JL
38
if it feels like you're the only one commenting, perhaps it's because your comments are too offensive to merit a response.
Stated perfectly. Thank you.
3. "many on the Left support and encourage such things..." - whether statements constitute support and encouragement are opinions, not facts.
Nope, this is a statement of fact..
Many on the Left *DO* support these kinds of activities and I have posted the FACTS that prove it's a fact..
So, out of the three complaints you made, you have a statement that is 50% fact and 50% fact-based opinion, you have a statement that is NOT an opinion, but rather a conclusion and it's a fact based conclusion.. And you have a final statement that you claim is an opinion when in FACT, it's a bona fide and provable (AND PROVEN) fact.....
So, I would say yer battin' a little on the low side, slugger... :D
Now, did you WANT to talk about me??
Or were you just makin' chit chat??? :D
NY22-63
Wish I could claim it, but don't think I can.
And I am also constrained to remind ya'all that 90% of ya'all's Trump accusations were based on ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS WHATSOEVER...
So, you might want to be careful where you cast NO-FACTS stones...
Because it's clear that ya'all are living in a fact-less glass house...
Ya'all's hysterical joy of Mueller investigating Trump for obstruction is a PERFECT example of ya'all claiming bullshit as "FACT"....
OK, if THAT is the criteria ya want to use, I'll apply that to ya'all's statements and we'll see how many of ya'all's statements are "fact"..
you already do, for everyone's statements but your own. and if there were not already sufficient evidence of your complete lack of understanding about what facts and opinions are, there's this little gem from last month:
In your opinion...
no, not in my opinion, in fact.
"No, it[sic] YOUR opinion that it's fact.."
Please the Court, while we reserve the right to call rebuttal witnesses if the need arises, the Government rests.
~jack ross
JL
neilm [2] -
I think you're reading too much into what I was attempting to say.
I was casting about for any way anyone could NOT call the shooter a terrorist (in order to reject it), and used guerrilla war and the IRA as an example of a different label that might have been used, only to then say why it couldn't in this case.
But I didn't address guerrilla war in any real way. So to be clear: guerrilla warriors can certainly be terrorists. The IRA were terrorists. No question.
The debate in that case is what I alluded to -- what is and what is not a valid military target. Now, as Reagan said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and all of that. But in the worst days of the Troubles, there was a serious debate over tactics.
What is and what is not a legitimate military target? This gets even trickier in the context of a war declared by a non-state group. That's one definition of guerrilla war.
But guerrilla war can be waged without terrorism. I have no perfect example to give (would have to do a lot of research), but the possibility does exist.
If a guerrilla group wages war only on government military forces on the other side, that's just war, not terrorism. When it does happen, the groups are usually called "rebels."
Problem is, absent some very favorable terrain being held by the rebels, it's usually a losing game for them (the state's forces are usually a lot bigger and better supplied).
So guerrilla groups often resort to terrorism of one sort or another. Kidnapping for profit, extortion of anyone they can threaten, stuff like that should also be counted as terrorism.
But normally, this means purposely attacking civilian populations in order to spread terror to achieve their political aims.
Such as bombing shopping areas in London during the Xmas season, for instance -- which the IRA did indeed do.
This is why the tactics debate raged. If innocent civilians are not valid targets (no one but terrorists would argue that they are), and state military forces are, what else could be?
In Northern Ireland, the police forces and Ulster militias were targeted. The British government was targeted, and at least one prominent assassination happened (by blowing up his yacht... Lord Mountbattan? I'd have to check...). There were arguments about both such tactics, but later on the IRA even realized that blowing the boat up was probably the most unproductive thing they'd ever done.
That's all I was alluding to in those first few paragraphs -- the "valid military target" debate. Was the British Prime Minister a valid target? The IRA launched a few (dud) mortars into the grounds of 10 Downing Street at one point.
I didn't really think the whole argument was necessary in this article, so I just brought it up to quickly reject it. But in no way was I suggesting that guerrilla war can't also be terrorism, or that the IRA were not terrorists. I was trying to make a point of "scale" -- one guy can't wage a guerrilla war, because one guy isn't an army, in other words.
Sorry for the confusion.
-CW
And, under the heading of Stones and Glass Houses..
NYT Uses GOP Shooting To Falsely Attack Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/nyt-uses-gop-shooting-to-falsely-attack-sarah-palin-with-debunked-conspiracy-theory/
Now, as Reagan said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and all of that.
And that is the BIGGEST pile of felgercarb of ALL the piles and felgercarb there are in the world...
The fact that Saint Ronnie said it notwithstanding..
There is nothing about freedom in terrorism and there is NOTHING noble about a terrorist...
neilm [6] -
Mueller can be fired, but it'd be messy. Here's a story:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/13/can-the-president-fire-special-counsel-robert-mueller-and-then-what/?utm_term=.5d3ddbf50cb0
and (even better) a nice flowchart to show what would have to happen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/06/13/how-trump-could-fire-the-special-counsel-if-he-were-foolish-enough-to-try/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_speccounsel-fix-1250pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl&utm_term=.089e7f759b1a
Can you say "Saturday Night Massacre"?
Heh.
-CW
ListenWhenYouHear [7] -
Seems to fit those definitions to me.
But that's just my opinion. I do realize different people differ on when to use the label.
Was glad to see Stephen Colbert clearly say "this was an act of terror" in his monologue last night, though.
-CW
and if there were not already sufficient evidence of your complete lack of understanding about what facts and opinions are,
And THAT is an opinion, unsupported by facts...
And, as I have aptly proven in comments #68, #69 and #70 (YNMV) your assessment of my statements is faulty and based more on Party ideology then on facts and reality.. Especially comment #70 whereas I totally demolish your claim that my statement wasn't a fact, but was an opinion..
I mean, if you want to play the technical/semantical game, I am more than willing to wrestle in the mud with ya....
:D
Mueller can be fired,
THANK YOU, CW....
I get loads of shit when I make the same claim...
Can you say "Saturday Night Massacre"?
Heh.
And, as has been aptly proven, President Trump doesn't give a shit about what the Hysterical Left will say or do...
Put another way, the Left will hysterically attack President Trump NO MATTER WHAT President Trump does..
That being a FACT (wink wink :D) why should President Trump care what the hysterical Dumbocrats or the hysterical Rethuglicans are going to do??
michale [14] -
I stuck that line in there because he reportedly had some pretty strong words against the DNC and Team Hillary (remember, he was a Bernie supporter). So who's to say whether he would have done the same thing if Debbie Wasserman Schultz had been out there? That was my only point.
Here's a quote for you to past on the wall next to your keyboard:
"Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" -George W Bush
Thought that was pretty good, possibly the best Dubya quote I've ever seen.
-CW
michale [16] -
You heard it here first.
We're all hoping Trump will fire Mueller. We don't really believe Trump is that monumentally stupid, but we can hope, right?
After all, it didn't work out real good for Nixon. After the SNM, his own party deserted him. Don't forget that part...
-CW
And THAT is an opinion, unsupported by facts...
yes it's an opinion, supported with new facts every time you claim one of your opinions to be a fact, including comment 70. feel free to keep digging your hole deeper though.
JL
michale [18] -
So is the entire Right and Republican Party responsible for the attack on the pizza joint in DC?
-CW
michale [20] -
Giving an exception to the IRA is only valid if the IRA had limited itself to military or combatant targets.
To the best of my knowledge, the IRA did NOT limit themselves in such a way so their exception is not valid...
Yeah, I rather thought we'd be in agreement on this one. Seems like the subject has come up previously, and I could have sworn we were both largely on the same page on this one.
-CW
CW,
I stuck that line in there because he reportedly had some pretty strong words against the DNC and Team Hillary (remember, he was a Bernie supporter). So who's to say whether he would have done the same thing if Debbie Wasserman Schultz had been out there? That was my only point.
Fair enough.. I withdraw my objection as I missed your point.. Apologies...
However, the scumbag Democrat shooter specifically targeted Republicans and verbally CONFIRMED that Republicans were on the field prior to opening fire..
My 25+ years of investigative experience tells me his motives were quite clear...
Thought that was pretty good, possibly the best Dubya quote I've ever seen.
That *IS* a damn good quote and I readily accept it... The problem around here is there are very VERY few who would also accept it..
We're all hoping Trump will fire Mueller. We don't really believe Trump is that monumentally stupid, but we can hope, right?
Ya'all didn't think that Trump would fire Comey... :D
And I don't think it's stoopid, I think it's brilliant..
Ya'all's problem is that ya'all are judging President Trump as if he was a run o the mill politician...
After all, it didn't work out real good for Nixon. After the SNM, his own party deserted him. Don't forget that part..
It might work out the same for Trump.. But it also might work out awesome for Trump and, by extension, awesome for this country...
Just really really bad for Democrats...
yes it's an opinion,
But it's an OPINION that you intimated was a FACT...
So, in other words, you are doing the EXACT same thing you accuse me of doing..
Stating opinions and claiming they are facts..
michale [28] -
You're just proving your own point. You are here treating the shooting as a partisan issue, mere hours after it happens. After every Righty shooting, you plead for partisanship and talk of the "mentally ill guy".
Seems like you are your own worst example.
-CW
michale [30] -
Got a link to that? Haven't read any Camille Paglia since she left Salon, be interesting to see what she's up to these days...
-CW
You're just proving your own point. You are here treating the shooting as a partisan issue, mere hours after it happens. After every Righty shooting, you plead for partisanship and talk of the "mentally ill guy".
Seems like you are your own worst example.
If you mean I am acting exactly like the Left acts, then sadly I must concede that...
But the difference with the previous shootings is that they were BOOB shootings and this one was not...
Many on the Left *DO* support these kinds of activities and I have posted the FACTS that prove it's a fact..
you've posted an article from "the right," quoting some web posts that are allegedly from "the left," all of which are copy-pasted with no context. "many" is a relative term. how many is "many?" that's an opinion. which of those posters actually support the terrorist's actions? unless you've surveyed them all, asking whether or not they support the terrorist, each of those is an opinion, based on limited data.
mind you, i don't necessarily disagree with your opinion in that case, but it, and most of your other claims of "the facts," are absolutely statements of opinion, not fact.
JL
Got a link to that? Haven't read any Camille Paglia since she left Salon, be interesting to see what she's up to these days...
I do...
PAGLIA: Dem party 'nationwide orgy of rage and spite'...
In a wide-ranging interview Paglia talks about Donald Trump's successes, how Chuck Schumer emboldened the "resistance," why the left can't condemn Islamist terrorism, and "the cold biological truth that sex changes are impossible."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/camille-paglia-on-trump-democrats-transgenderism-and-islamist-terror/article/2008464
It's a great read and I would love to hear your thoughts on it..
michale [41] -
Nope. He posted a cartoon of Scalise on his Facebook page and made disparaging comments. That's it.
-CW
michale [42] -
OK, well then, I retract my correction!
:-)
-CW
JL,
you've posted an article from "the right," quoting some web posts that are allegedly from "the left," all of which are copy-pasted with no context. "many" is a relative term. how many is "many?" that's an opinion. which of those posters actually support the terrorist's actions? unless you've surveyed them all, asking whether or not they support the terrorist, each of those is an opinion, based on limited data.
mind you, i don't necessarily disagree with your opinion in that case, but it, and most of your other claims of "the facts," are absolutely statements of opinion, not fact.
SO, we're back to debating what the definition of IS is... :^/
MANY is MANY... As in more than a few..
And MORE THAN A FEW on the Left have expressed their support of this scumbag Democrat shooter's actions..
So, my statement that MANY have expressed support for these actions is a FACTUAL statement..
You may not LIKE that it's a factual statement which is why you want to equivocate it to hell and back...
But, your like/dislike notwithstanding, it doesn't change the FACT that I made a factual statement and provided the FACTS to support the factual statement..
Like I said, if you want to play the semantical/technical game, I got nothing but time...
But it's an OPINION that you intimated was a FACT...
So, in other words, you are doing the EXACT same thing you accuse me of doing..
that's both fallacious argumentation and untrue. what does "intimated" mean? i didn't claim my opinion was a fact, you're just trying to appeal to a hypocrisy that doesn't exist.
JL
SO, we're back to debating what the definition of IS is... :^/
not the definition of "IS" the definition of "FACT"
nypoet22 [60] -
97-2!
Can you say "veto-proof"?
Heh. Let's see what the House vote is...
-CW
So is the entire Right and Republican Party responsible for the attack on the pizza joint in DC?
That was the Left Wing's story at the time....
Personally, I don't think it is because the Pizza Story was not a nation-wide movement that has been going on for 6 months...
But a case, albeit a tenuous case, COULD be made to that effect..
You see the difference between me and all the hysterical Weigantians??
I concede the possibility in a calm and rational manner.
Whereas they go batshit hysterical crazy in their denials..
THAT is what comes from being enslaved by Party ideology... I don't have ANY loyalty to the GOP so I can step back and calmly and rationally assess any accusation made against the GOP... AND the Dems...
michale [parting shot] -
I remember not so long ago when you were trying to convince us all that Obama probably hadn't been born in Hawai'i. Just like Donald Trump, for that matter.
And we all remember how contientious you were about fact-checking and unsubstantiated rumors back then, right?
[snerk... pause for laughter]
-CW
JL,
i didn't claim my opinion was a fact, you're just trying to appeal to a hypocrisy that doesn't exist.
OK, unless I specifically STATE that my statement is a fact, will you get off my back and quit accusing me of bullshit things I am not doing???
OK, unless I specifically STATE that my statement is a fact, will you get off my back and quit accusing me of bullshit things I am not doing???
absolutely!
JL
I remember not so long ago when you were trying to convince us all that Obama probably hadn't been born in Hawai'i. Just like Donald Trump, for that matter.
And we all remember how contientious you were about fact-checking and unsubstantiated rumors back then, right?
I'll be happy to concede that if ya'all are willing to concede that ya'all are acting the *EXACT* same way now??
:D
You game???
Ya'all ready to admit that ya'all are acting towards Trump EXACTLY was the Right acted towards Obama???
It would eliminate a LOT of future back and forth... :D
absolutely!
JL
Good.. That'll make things easier... :D
LWYH
So sorry for your loss. Diesel sounds like one amazing K9. Please tell us about your adventures when you feel like reminiscing.
michale -
OK, that Paglia interview was interesting. I don't agree with all her positions, but then I rarely do.
I do like reading her stuff, though, becuase she does think for herself. Agree or disagree, at least she's not just parroting someone else's thoughts.
So thanks for the link. Wish she'd return to Salon on a regular basis...
-CW
I remember not so long ago when you were trying to convince us all that Obama probably hadn't been born in Hawai'i. Just like Donald Trump, for that matter.
And, just to clarify the FACTS.. :D
All I ever said is that there was some discrepancies that were logical and rational and needed to be addressed..
The idea that, because Odumbo's grandparents put a notice in the Hawaii paper, that PROVES Odumbo was born there is ludicrous...
Further I believe I was on record as saying that, even if Odumbo HAD been born in Kenya, it would not have disqualified Odumbo from being President...
Just the FACTS.....
JL,
absolutely!
JL
And if you can TRY and give me credit when I DO post facts, that also would make things a lot easier and a lot more amiable around here...
I will endeavor to reciprocate as well..
I do like reading her stuff, though, becuase she does think for herself. Agree or disagree, at least she's not just parroting someone else's thoughts.
That's exactly why I like reading her as well...
She is not just mouthing Party platitudes, not just a Party drone.....
I disagree with her often, but I know she is giving it to me straight without ANY Party zealotry...
ListenWhenYouHear -
Just posted a condolence note, just wanted to make sure you saw it...
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/12/three-court-cases-worth-noting/#comment-102901
-CW
And if you can TRY and give me credit when I DO post facts, that also would make things a lot easier and a lot more amiable around here...
fair 'nuff :)
JL
Trump Orders Government to Stop Work on Y2K Bug, 17 Years Later
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-15/trump-orders-government-to-stop-work-on-y2k-bug-17-years-later
heh :D
I have to say that I am honestly and completely shocked..
We ARE actually seeing a Rally Around The President effect....
I never thought in a MILLION years that ANYTHING could bring this country together....
Maybe there IS hope for us after all...
Here is an interesting question for ya'all to consider...
Supposed President John F Kennedy had ordered FBI Director J Edgar Hoover to cease the investigation of Dr Martin Luther King Jr....
Would that be Obstruction Of Justice??
@m[114],
if so, it's because he has handled this shooting crisis fairly well. his reaction showed restraint, and it seemed to me like he grasped the gravity of the situation. it is a welcome change from his prior responses to terrorist activity, such as the ones in london and manchester. if donald starts to be more appropriate on a consistent basis, his numbers will likely reflect that.
JL
@m[115],
depends on the constitutional basis for the request. if the president felt the investigation was racially motivated then it would be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, and therefore the president's duty to prevent. if the president tried to influence the investigation based solely on the perception of MLK as a "good guy" then there would be no constitutional basis and it probably would be obstruction.
JL
if so, it's because he has handled this shooting crisis fairly well. his reaction showed restraint, and it seemed to me like he grasped the gravity of the situation. it is a welcome change from his prior responses to terrorist activity, such as the ones in london and manchester. if donald starts to be more appropriate on a consistent basis, his numbers will likely reflect that.
Agreed.... Trump has the potential, there is no denying that...
depends on the constitutional basis for the request. if the president felt the investigation was racially motivated then it would be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, and therefore the president's duty to prevent. if the president tried to influence the investigation based solely on the perception of MLK as a "good guy" then there would be no constitutional basis and it probably would be obstruction.
Assume it's the latter... Assume it's a TIME QUEST type scenario...
You could support an OBSTRUCTION charge against JFK for trying to protect MLK from the evil clutches of J Edgar?? :D
Russ,
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2017/06/former_dominatrix_fights_to_keep_job_as_sheriffs_o.html
Comments???
Hi CW - I get a bit touchy regarding N. Ireland - my bad.
You could support an OBSTRUCTION charge against JFK for trying to protect MLK from the evil clutches of J Edgar?? :D
The real point here is Hoover exceeding his legal rights if MLK was being investigated solely for political reasons. But the point would not be pertinent to MLK - who else were the FBI investigating for political reasons? What if Hoover was also investigating Nixon so he "had the goods" on him - would you be OK with JFK telling Hoover to stop a fishing expedition into Nixon? Or Gerald Ford, or then Governor Reagan?
Mueller isn't investigating the role of Russian influence into the 2016 election because he wanted to, he is doing it because it is the sole reason for the position he is holding.
Assume it's the latter... Assume it's a TIME QUEST type scenario...
i have no idea what that means. MLK actually did have some connections to russia. RFK as AG signed off on an an investigation of those ties, and what they found was that MLK was cheating on his wife.
JL
@m[119],
i'm of the opinion that the past is the past. if george w. bush was an alcoholic, obama and clinton smoked weed, and trump cribbed his speeches from he who shall not be named, a law enforcement officer shouldn't be denied employment based on fetishy activities she engaged in legally five years prior.
JL
Here is a good one for EM....
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/15/533058002/biden-talks-trump-faith-and-fate-in-front-of-a-live-fresh-air-audience?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=freshair
Others might enjoy it as well....
@gt,
great report. biden is such a straight shooter, it's amazing that he's been successful in politics in spite of it.
JL
CW, nypoet22, Kick and everyone else who have offered their condolences... Devon and I appreciate your kind words.
Michale,
What proof do you have to support your claim that this shooting was politically motivated?
Yer kidding, right??
The Democrat scumbag shooter asked if it were Democrats or Republicans on the field immediately before the shots rang out..
The scumbag Democrat shooter has a history of violence and belonged to several anti-GOP groups..
Oh, I think it was politically motivated. I just questioned why you would after arguing that the Orlando Pulse shooter wasn't targeting gays intentionally and it was more that he just happened to choose the gay club to carry out his terrorist attack.
Michale [119]
She should definitely be allowed to start her new job as a sheriff's deputy! Her videos may have been taboo, but they weren't pornographic. She was an actress, not a prostitute. She went by a stage name, not her real name. The department worried that it would make them look bad, but had the department not made such a big deal over it, the public would most likely have never known anything about it. They wound up causing the embarrassment they claimed to want to prevent!
I wonder if the sheriff had a problem with the SEAL Team commander who did a couple of pornos with his wife, who had been an adult film star prior to their meeting and getting married?
JL [123] I agree. Of course if she's ever accused of 'humiliating' a suspect, it could come up..
Balthy
12
Dr. Joseph Dolan: You know, it's a shame about Ed.
Fletch: Oh, it was. Yeah, it was really a shame. To go so suddenly like that.
Dr. Joseph Dolan: He was dying for years.
Fletch: Sure, but... the end was very... very sudden.
Dr. Joseph Dolan: He was in intensive care for eight weeks.
Fletch: Yeah, but I mean the very end, when he actually died. That was extremely sudden
In case you missed the point, read my comment again, and recognize the tremendous amount of violence inside and outside the Soviet Union and in S. Africa prior to the "non-violent" resolutions.
"Outcomes are not guaranteed, however. Russia is an example of democratic promise gone sideways, as is Egypt (and everywhere else affected by the 'Arab Spring'). Some non-violent revolutions are ultimately just coups that simply trade one set of autocrats for another (for example Egypt and Iran)."
Only if you stick to the list of approved reading
material full of falsehoods and revisionism.
The revolution in Egypt was overturned by a coup that reinstated an autocracy... the revolution in Iran was hardly "non-violent" and brought in a level of democracy... Tunisia has been rather successful... and, regarding the other countries affected by the Arab Spring, if by "gone sideways" you mean crushed by outside forces led by the US and Saudi Arabia, then I would agree.
A
@balthasar,
that's why police have official procedures. if some perp cries out against being "dominated," the officer can document for the court that procedures were followed and professional standards adhered to. if she does her job well, trying to prejudice the court by bringing up her past is more of a trap for suspects to fall into than an avenue for them to escape.
JL
JL,
i have no idea what that means.
It's a movie reference.. Watch Time Quest and you'll get it..
To whit, JFK is not assassinated in 1963, goes on to win re-election by a landslide and MLK is his VP....
It's an awesome movie that actually made my like Democrats.. :D
MLK actually did have some connections to russia. RFK as AG signed off on an an investigation of those ties, and what they found was that MLK was cheating on his wife.
So it was a legitimate investigation...
So, if JFK wanted J Edgar to back off because JFK was convinced the "Russia ties" were bupkiss and JFK was considering MLK for VP, technically it would have been Obstruction..
But telling Hoover to back off is WELL WITHIN the purview of the POTUS...
Russ,
Oh, I think it was politically motivated. I just questioned why you would after arguing that the Orlando Pulse shooter wasn't targeting gays intentionally and it was more that he just happened to choose the gay club to carry out his terrorist attack.
I believe at the time, I said that terrorism was the primary focus due to the subject's affiliations and statements..
While it's possible that scumbag shooter hated gays and targeted gays, it wasn't germane to the fact that this was a terrorist attack...
Put another way.. If this scumbag hated women and specifically targeted a nail salon, that wouldn't have any relevance to the fact that it was a terrorist attack..
JL, Russ,
I am in complete agreement with ya'all on the issue of the SO...
She's completed her academy training, her past is borderline as far as morality goes and nothing she did was illegal so she should be able to serve...
And there’s something else. Here I want to note the words spoken by Kathy Griffin, the holder of the severed head. In a tearful news conference she said of the president, “He broke me.” She was roundly mocked for this. Oh, the big bad president’s supporters were mean to you after you held up his bloody effigy. But she was exactly right. He did break her. He robbed her of her sense of restraint and limits, of her judgment. He broke her, but not in the way she thinks, and he is breaking more than her.
We have been seeing a generation of media figures cratering under the historical pressure of Donald Trump. He really is powerful.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rage-is-all-the-rage-and-its-dangerous-1497571401
“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late 70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening and … it created a climate in which violence took place. I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”
-Nancy Pelosi, 2009
Word...