My Response
Dave Burris called me out on his blog. I guess it would be discourteous of me not to respond, so here is my response.
The secessionist rhetoric, the revolt talk, and the violent imagery framed as patriotism that right-wing bloggers, pundits, and politicians like Dave Burris use for effect is being taken seriously by unstable people. That is a fact. There are three dead cops in Pittsburgh who testify to the veracity of my observation.
Dave can bluster and level uniformed ad hominem attacks at me all he wants, but no amount of pretend outrage can alter the simple fact. Words have impact.
like Dave Burris…
like Dave Burris…
like Dave Burris …
This isn’t a cutesy end-around to pretend you don’t hold him directly culpable.
Sorry, J, but in conversations past, this is a justification for you to BLAME Dave for these events. It frustrates the piss out of me that you refuse to see that. I still say it’s only because he is someone who is tangible to you (that you can actually say you know, as opposed to Beck, Limbaugh, etc) that it makes it EASY for you to ATTACK him. Seriously, for all the personal shit you’ve levied at him over the past several months (with some lags interspersed), if you didn’t expect what happened today to happen, then you haven’t been paying attention to yourself.
I hate this shit, I hate it ALL, but you are hardly an innocent. Dave Burris had NOTHING to do with this stuff, yet in your world, you think he did. On top of that, you trivialize tragedy to make it so. You know, make up the solution first, then play connect-the-dots for spaghetti logic.
There are 2 truly irredeemable right wing bloggers in Delaware, and they are Hube and Burris. I am friendly with, and can even agree on occasion with a host of our friends on the other side, like Steve Newton, Dana Pico, RSmitty, Tyler Nixon, Maria Evans, and hell, even David Anderson. I do respect them.
Burris and Hube on the other hand, not so much.
What did all these suddenly courageous conservative defenders of free speech have to say when it was Ward Churchill in the spotlight?
I believe strongly in freedom of speech. Words have consequences. When Glenn Beck goes on TV to an audience of millions and says that the Obama administration is rounding up people to send to FEMA camps, what does that mean to them?
Eff Beck, Limbaugh, Shamnity, etc (too many to name, too many to stomach)!
Only truly discerning listeners should be allowed to listen, but if that were the case, they wouldn’t waste their time, anyway. Of course, we can’t regulate that, so I have no problem going after THEM for this rhetoric.
Going after Burris, ad nauseum, for this stuff: cheap, low, pathetic, and lazy (and isolating to some groups of pundits).
For you to connect deeds of violence to the political rhetoric of those who you even acknowledge are in no way advocating acts of violence is despicible and dishonest.
And for you RWR, to continue to ignore my apology for my “Round Up” comments is despicable and dishonest. But it is Republican.
But it is Republican
No, it is the hell not.
I like micheal jackson…ergo I am a pedophile
RSmitty,
There are 93 posts in that thread. Not a single one from you condemning the lies, vicious personal attacks, and veiled threats against Jason.
Not one from you.
But, hey, Jason responds on his blog and you’re all over him.
Nice. I guess you agree with Burris’ every word about Jason or you just don’t have the guts to say you don’t on Burris’ blog.
fyi: I love me some ui….I’d say more but I might offend her awesome other half….
Oh, a1…sometimes, you need to check allegiances, too. Jason has made it a freaking sport to bury Burris with lazy and supposed direct connections to the likenesses of the media whores. I haven’t seen you condemning him over several months for that. Oh wait, you encouraged it…right. Today’s post only shocked me that he waited this long.
I don’t like it, though. I don’t like it in that I don’t like either side of this shit. Jason pretends it isn’t personal because he think it so. However, for someone so hung up on meaning of words, he is utterly blind to the tripe he puts forth about Burris.
Not to mention, it’s a horrible distraction. Most of us (most) are here to be annoying and antagonizing pundits unbound by traditional media and doing what we BELIEVE would be proper methods to improve the sorry ass environment (literal, political, economic, and societal). However, so long as these two go at it, distraction is at a high and we’re flicking boogies at each other to keep it going.
FTR, I really have no problem with the post. The intimating of beating him up, though, yeah, not a fan. Then again, taking MULTIPLE posts over the months to claim Burris’ culpability in so much of the violence (or implied) is utter lazy bullshit.
Oh, as far as not commenting during the day, I’m making a point to being more focused on work, as I should be. It’s a good, VERY GOOD habit to practice.
Call it on both, and we can talk.
For you to connect deeds of violence to the political rhetoric of those who you even acknowledge are in no way advocating acts of violence is despicable and dishonest.
What?
I’m not trying to exculpate any Republican who posted on the “sovereignty” issue. I’m trying to inculpate them. The facts of the case inculpate them. The shooter used the very secessionist fear mongering talking points that Dave posted to motivate himself to action. Did you miss that part?
Dave, and others, were taking part in a Republican campaign to make Obama seem like a threat to states. That is not in dispute. The campaign is ongoing and people like Dave view it as so much political game playing.
In a way, I have to admit that I am surprised that even now, they don’t acknowledge that their gamesmanship has had tragic downstream consequences.
I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but there you have it.
Smitty,
I quit the personal stuff a few months ago. It was bad for my health. Since then I’ve been consistently focused on issues rather than personalities.
Dave made a choice when he posted the on the “sovereignty” issue. He chose to be a part of a right-wing fear mongering campaign for whatever reason. He could have made another choice and I wish he had.
Anyway, he needs to live with his choice. If the way he wants to live with it is by attacking me, so be it.
As I posted on the FSP thread:
“An observation: This thread and its counterparts at DL etc. can be summed up as follows – a bunch of 30-50 something year old men talking shit about each other like a bunch of high school girls.
A suggestion: Start acting your age again and get back to talking about things that actually matter.
My take on the Pittsburgh situation: crazy people will do crazy shit. We should keep guns away from crazy people, but even if we do they’ll probably still find a way to do what they’re gonna do.
For the record, I don’t think Dave Burris has anything whatsoever to do with it. And I doubt Jason really does either. I also don’t think Jason really is a piece of human garbage. And I doubt Dave really does either.
Let’s be honest, guys, there’s way too work to be done in this world to spend so much time absorbed in this pettiness.”
I also don’t think Jason really is a piece of human garbage.
Thanks!
human waste
Call it on both, and we can talk.
And when did Jason ever write something like Burris’ “You should thank your God there are laws protecting you from me right now and that I follow those laws”?
He hasn’t. Unlike right wing commentators skilled in the art of threatening using “plausible deniability,” Jason doesn’t make personal threats like that, so there’s no calling it “on both.”
And it shows that Burris, in his own words, has the same moral depravity as many of his violent wingnut brethren, but apparently only the law, not personal morality, is stopping him “right now.”
Sweet.
johnny x,
the problem is complacency…something that people like dave and the rest of his followers like to dismiss when the rubber meets the road or more specifically in times like these….
if anonone is a hot busty chick, I call dibs
Again, A1, that part of the post was bad. But I won’t use that to ignore the history of Jason using Dave as his lazy-targeting for his rhetoric. Blogging this crap isn’t simply passing notes around in class…it’s internet -> blogs -> search-engines. It’s bull-shit, low-hanging-fruit. Jason knows damn well that Burris in no way, whatsoever would ever condone, direct or indirect, any of what has gone on (violence-wise); however, that admission won’t come, because it would compromise the argument. In the meantime, consequences (of reference and background internet searches) be damned. Remember, that’s why you and key-other people around here prefer to be anonymous.
RSmitty, get back to me when Jason writes that he wishes that he could personally harm Burris, ‘k?
Then we can talk.
Maybe at the same time when Jason stops believing the killings in Pittsburgh, NY, and other political hate crimes are Burris’ fault.
See the stale mate here? Thing is, the blame-Burris game (in this spirit) started in 2008, Burris directly responded via a post in what…April 2009. APRIL 2-0-0-9. Check your scorecard, A1.
In the meantime, consequences (of reference and background internet searches) be damned. Remember, that’s why you and key-other people around here prefer to be anonymous.
I guess that doesn’t matter?
Truth be told, his incessant blaming of Burris of all things evil is a bit unsettling.
It appears that the rightwingnuts have forgotten that words can stir the evil in people. Thus the ditto heads respond to the trash talk that the Dope head , Beck and others put out every day on the radio and in the halls of congress. We have already seen the violence that this type of talk leads too. I have heard several vailed threats against Obama on the radio down here in Sussex with the host agreeing with the caller.
Let’s us not forget that the false rumors put out by the Nazis against the Jews in 1933 had drastic results,because stupid people believed them.
RSmitty,
I guess you don’t see the irony of a right wing blogger wishing he could cause personal harm to a left wing blogger for writing a post about right wingers stirring up violence.
Fuck you and your “compassion,” scumbag.
I love it!
RSmitty, you are an honest broker here, in my opinion. You have called me out when I was wrong, and then defended me against your comrades when they were wrong. There have been times when you agreed with and defended Jason and there have been times where you have disagreed and criticized him.
So I do respect your opinion here.
Jason is standing by his post, and Dave no doubt is standing by his. The feud between Jason and Dave will continue to the end of time, and this latest is just the next chapter.
No one is backing down. You think Jason is wrong in his linking Burris to Poplawski. Understood. And a reasonable person can disagree with him on the linkage. You say Burris is not Beck or Limbaugh or Bachmann. Yes, you are right he is not. But in saying that you admit something, in my opinion. You admit that the words of Beck, Limbaugh and Bachmann are provactive of violence. And thus it would be appropriate to link Poplawski to them whereas it would be inappropriate to link Poplawski to Burris.
So what we come down to is the following point of disagreement: Is Burris’ successionist rhetoric in line with that of Bachmann and Beck? Jason says yes. You and others say no.
And there we have it. No minds are going to be changed. In my opinion, Burris is overreacting in his ad homimem attacks on Jason. Indeed, this is a classic case of projection.
What’s the point of this comment…. I haven’t the foggiest, but it is time to move on and wait for the next right wing killer to take out a mall of people.
DD, no where in that post on the 10th amendment that Dave put up (the post Jason “credits”), even the blockquote of Hawkins, is there a mention of a call to arms…nowhere. What it does put out is an infringement upon states’ rights, which is a debate that will go on and on until this economic fracas (brought on by jagass CheneyBush and Co) can finally be settled.
Media whores have in fact brought, implied or otherwise, mentions of violence into the fray. Dave did not. Now, as I see it, simply because Dave took the position of states’ rights, that qualified him to be lumped by Jason into calling for violence, implied or otherwise. Go look at it. That did not happen. Jason forced the equation to work. THAT is why I can’t be quiet on this one.
There is no other conclusion than to say that Jason HATES him and desires nothing but a life of failures and/or pain for him. Either that or something troubling is brewing there. While Dave should NOT have even hinted at beating up Jason like school kids do (although A1 would have you believe AK47s would be involved), the rest of that post does not surprise me. Ad hominems? Sure, I see that. I’ve tried to make a habit of staying away from those posts. However, after months of “fat bastard republican,” “goat fucker,” etc., what do you expect? A thank you?
For reasons typed above, I have an opinion to express on this one and that’s why I didn’t stay away this time. Jason drew a bridge on his connect-the-dots logic page and pulled Dave into his violence-motivated political jihad. BTW, you can’t look past the initial reaction to the NY massacre, either. EVERY act of violence like this has been painted as politically motivated, then when someone balks, they’re the insensitive jagazzes. Here, we have one that may be just that (Pittsburgh), but after how many attempts to paint that picture? In this local blogosphere (keep the media whores out of this thought), who’s being insensitive in trivializing the tragedy?
Just as a side point, so you know where I come from, I can’t stand a single national media whore from any side of the aisle. My God, I hope I have made that clear enough in the past. They have a mission to generate ratings for ad revenues, plain and simple. Second to that mission is their personal agenda. Unfortunately, those two goals combined, eminating from the “safety” of an enclosed booth, away from direct, personal contact, tends to allow them to go to hysterics and mental manipulation* to spout their stuff of personal gain. I don’t think either side is immune to this, either. Possibly an exception or two, but no immunity.
* – on the mental manipulation, I am not so sure this is intentional. Rather, my thought is that it started rather innocuously, but out of unchecked, immature chest-beating and temper-tantrum reactions, it got to where it is today. I seriously don’t think those wonks have a genuine clue. In other words, they THINK their shit don’t stink, but it fouls up the air for every single one of us. No side is immune. I am all for going after them (via words and protests), ad nauseum. They deserve it. It’s their bed and they made it. Make ’em sleep in it!
RSmitty wrote:
although A1 would have you believe AK47s would be involved
RSmitty, I never said that and never would. Only the shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. 8)
No, I simply employed a Jason tactic of taking my own interpretation that something was implied and embellishing the hell out of it for personal effect. See how it works?
Academy award, here we come (I do want a percentage of the movie rights).
8)