Has Violence Already Started?
As has been documented before, the Republican party and astroturf lobbying groups have been encouraging people to disrupt townhall meetings of Democratic members of Congress. These tea party activists are part of the paranoid, far right wing base of the party and have been using some questionable tactics. Tactics like shouting down all questions, loudly interrupting, name-calling and in some cases, physical intimidation. Are these tactics starting to turn violent?
The number of death threats to Obama has increased so much that the Secret Service has requested double the number of agents. He’s reported to get 30 death threats per day.
North Carolina Democratic Representative Brad Miller has received death threats:
Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) will not be hosting any town hall events this August — instead, he’s making himself available to constituents for one-on-one meetings about health care reform — and at least part of the reason is this: His offices have received threatening phone calls, including at least one direct threat against his life.
“We had no town hall events scheduled for the August recess anyway, but in light of everything that’s happened — we have received a threatening phone call in the D.C. office, there have been calls to the Raleigh office,” said Miller communications director LuAnn Canipe, in an interview with TPM. The threatening call in question happened earlier this week.
“The call to the D.C. office was, ‘Miller could lose his life over this,'” said Canipe. “Our staffer took it so seriously, he confirmed what the guy was saying. He said, ‘Sir is that a threat?’ and at that time our staffer was getting the phone number off caller ID and turning it over to the Capitol Police.”
An unnamed Democratic member of Congress has also been reported to have been physically assaulted:
As lobbyist-run groups encourage conservative activists to “rattle” members of Congress at local town hall events, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), the president of the freshman Democratic class has revealed that “at least one freshman Democrat” has already been “physically assaulted at a local event.” Connolly warned that conservative groups had taken things to a “dangerous level“:
I hope we can stop the violence in time, before there are more serious consequences.
Tags: Health Care Reform, Tea Parties
They should hold the town halls in the inner cities.
This is when we need to hold the Gaffneys/Colleys/Limbaughs, etc. accountable for inciting these incidents. Maybe it will take a state’s attorney with some big cojones to indict one of these stooges for conspiracy (assault, rioting, whatever) to make the teabaggers and their puppetmasters step back and realize that things have gotten out of control and that they need to dial it down.
anon, I read someone else pose that idea. I think townhalls should be held in inner cities anyway.
“I want my country back!” What do the fringe lunatics mean when they rant this in public and on the self-affirming Rick Jensen-type wingnut radio shows? For that matter what are so-called moderate Republicans saying when they reply to those rants with silence?
They are saying that they simple don’t accept a non-Republican as President. They don’t accept the give and take of politics and civil discourse that has this country was built upon.
I think this gives Mike Castle a chance to win back a bit the dignity that he gave away to the wingnuts to easily over the past eight years. Weather he runs for Senate or not, he has been given the chance to rebuke the base of the Republican party and by “base” I mean in the sense of low, no-good, lacking in quality.
He can throw off the wishy-washy, “never take a stand” risk-averse branding that he has built up around himself over the past 40 years and say, “Enough of thsi anti-American bullshit posing as patriotism.”
We wouldn’t do that of course. But if he gives a damn about what his years in public life amount to – he should consider it.
They want the myth of a center-right nation back. At least with a Republican president they could tell themselves that this was true.
Yes, I think I got the idea from a dkos comment… but I am sure a lot of people came up with it independently. I’d like to see Crazy Eileen waving her baggie around in the ‘hood.
I agree about Castle, Jason. He did take a stand in saying that Obama was an American citizen, but that is really uncontroversial to people who can read and aren’t delusional. The lesson that Republicans learned from that incident though was to be scared of their base rather than standing up to it.
I love it, anon. I’d love to see those teabaggers trying to protest in the inner city. That would be interesting.
From what I’m reading, Democrats have learned from the early problems and are taking action. In fact, I was reading just this morning that the anticipated backlash is already here.
Of course it’s going to escalate. How can it not? These Conservatives aren’t looking for a conversation… they’re looking for a fight.
It’s already escalating… Dave Burris has always followed the lead of the national party, now he is following their lead in harassment and intimidation. All that is missing is a Wanted posted of kavips with cross-hairs.
I’d love to see those teabaggers trying to protest in the inner city. That would be interesting.
I’d like to see them try to park their trucks with the Confederate flag decals…
El Burrito Junior, by his own admission, said that he was present for the creation of CRI. He said that he stepped aside to avoid appearances of politicization for the ‘non-partisan’ think tank. Yet he insists that he has no clue (so far, so good) as to how CRI is funded. Right.
He’s trying to cover his own sorry ass by trying to silence the critics. By outing them, if necessary.
The truth hurts, Burrito Boy. And it’s coming out one way or another, threats or no threats. That’s a promise.
El Som,
You see not even a scintilla of culpability in any of this? Your incessant dogging and refusal to allow any answer to CRI other than your own has nothing to do with this? I don’t think k would have given a rat’s ass about Wozniak except for the inclusion you put there. I certainly am not saying it’s your fault, but I won’t say you’re fault-less. In hindsight, it ended up being a freaking chain of dominos. I feel bad for k, but I also feel bad for Garrett, who was mercilessly dissected by k, which honestly, is out of k’s blogging character.
One thing I absolutely agree with, and this goes all the way back to Patrick Cahill of Smyrna being viciously libelled, slandered, and nearly attacked, if you are going to make allegations that can have serious implications, good or bad, you better be fricking prepared to stand behind that with your name. Doing that shit anonymously, then pretending to have this bull shit veil of anonymity is just that – bull shit. The first go-around in court allowing that creep to be anonymous was terrible, the second go-around, which was definitely following the law on slander/libel and the victim having the right to know their attacker, was spot-on which is what led to the eventual admission of Shaeffer’s step-daughter. Although, there are many, including me, that still doubt whether or not that was a legit confession (i.e.: step-daughter willingly covered up).
Anyway, point is, if you are going to go after someone like that, who is NOT a public employee, servant, etc., which Garrett is not, then don’t be cozy about it. Anonymity in that realm is bullshit.
What I see right now is both sides beginning to circle their wagons around their own and it’s not going to be pretty and that’s unfortunate.
I feel bad for k, but I likewise feel bad for Garrett, who no one really seems to have given a shit about.
Signed,
Randy Smith
Your Ombudsman
It also seems to me that if Garrett or anyone from CRI had an issue with what kavips had to say that they should be dealing with that. Being the self-appointed enforcer for these people and thuggishly trying to retaliate for something that he had no party to isn’t exactly a path to honor.
And this, I think, is bullshit:
You see not even a scintilla of culpability in any of this? Your incessant dogging and refusal to allow any answer to CRI other than your own has nothing to do with this?
I think that if CRI and its defenders had anymore other than handwaving, poo-pooing and “we got that, how come you didn’t”, do you think that this would have gotten this far? You’ve been here long enough to know that none of those defenses actually get you much traction here and to date no one has stepped up to actually refute much of what we reported. If we are trying to expand the circle of culpability here, perhaps we could include CRI and its defenders for, you know, not solidly refuting much.
how does one refute spin and personal attack?
We’ve been handing your ass to you on a regular basis, so it isn’t as though it can’t be done.
CRI is freaked out that it has been exposed as a Republican front organization. Its backers had invested a lot of money into trying to create the illusion that it was a nonpartisan good-government outfit. Now that money is wasted.
Their cluelessness in this regard is circumstantial evidence that they are old-school moneymen stuck in the past, thinking that all they have to do is control the News Journal and they will get the story told their way. Pete du Pont and his henchmen are as good a guess as any.
But they didn’t count on El Som and others blowing their narrative out of the water.
Getting back on topic, yes UI, I think we are seeing the prelude to violence, which I believe that the Right is promoting their fringe to do. This is the classic ‘end justifies the means’ approach that we have seen from the Right for a long time. It is a tactic to attempt to overcome weakness with bold action. It must be constantly revealed by the Dems for exactly what this is.
On ML’s comment in post #2, the Gaffney/Colley WGMD crowd now has their SCCOR candidate announcing on the Repub side for the 37th RD race to replace Joe Booth, Eric Bodenweiser. The Dems must step up to this challenge.
Refusal to what, Smitty? Ask legitimate questions and not get legitimate answers?
Unless you consider ‘None of your damn business’ an answer, or some cutesy-poo too clever by half non-denial denials by Charlie Copeland.
And ‘bulo NEVER went after Wozniak personally. He challenged his ‘non-partisan’ bona fides using the record and Wozniak’s own words. In fact, the Beast Who Slumbers has deliberately withheld information about Garrett that could be embarrassing, or at least inconvenient, and has made sure that it has not found its way onto this blog. Were it to find its way onto the blog, ‘bulo would delete it and ban the offender. Why, because it’s not germane to the real discussion and could only be used to maliciously harm Garrett and possibly other innocent parties. Why you don’t see that that’s exactly what those trying to keep CRI under deep cover are doing is beyond ‘bulo. They are trying to intimidate anyone and everyone who raise legitimate questions about CRI.
‘Bulo has NO idea about this Cahill/Schaeffer thing. Was he involved in it in any way? Was he even WRITING for DL at the time? Was DL involved at all? Or are you saying that b/c ONE anonymous blogger acted irresponsibly, every one else is guilty? El Somnambulo is responsible for what he writes, no one else. Stop trying to change the bleeping subject.
Garrett is a political operative closely aligned with Charlie Copeland serving as director of a ‘non-partisan’ think tank peddling a partisan agenda that SOMEONE with partisan motivations is bankrolling. The multitude of ties points to Charles Copeland. That’s fair game. The personal stuff is not.
“how does one refute spin and personal attack?”
I’m rather confused about how detailing Mr. Wozniak’s experience or lack thereof constitutes a “personal attack.” Granted, kavips was biting, belittling and sarcastic, but I fail to see how going over the public record of a person in a public-arena job counts as “over the line.”
As for outing people online, some of us would love to use our real names but can’t because of work rules (or, in some cases, personal attack by people trying to get us fired).
It is the natural evolution of the blogosphere for everyone to be outed. If you fear being outed, you shouldn’t be on the Internet.
If you want to keep your identity a secret, don’t tell anybody else – no exceptions. And don’t use email, or any services that require a login.
For some bloggers who are outed, they will give up. For others, they will keep on until some behind-the-scenes GOP bastard gets them blacklisted in their line of work.
But for some, exposure will make them madder, and will remove all restraints. Those, Burris will regret. I don’t think the GOP really wants white-hot, intelligent bloggers revealing all their angel investors for their allegedly self-made businesses. Or drawing connections between their political contributors.
Anon is right. ‘Bulo’s identity is a poorly-kept secret. Anyone who really wants to know, knows.
And he’s not about to put his brain or his keyboard out to pasture.
Absolutely this is going to get uglier before it gets better. The right has only been out of power a few months, and already they’re acting like they forget how government works. This townhall nonsense is just what happens to be at the forefront now. Watch the militias over the next few years. Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge during the Clinton years? That was anger over a white Dem President! Incidentaly, this “grassroots”, “they’re all just lone individuals” rhetoric they are using is a classic militia tactic that dates back to the 1980’s. It’s all about using the poor grunts to do the dirty work, while the “masterminds” (I can’t believe I used that word to decribe Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey) can keep plausible deniability.
“…until some behind-the-scenes GOP bastard gets them blacklisted in their line of work.”
Or some radical leftist, or just somebody who hates your guts.
It is easy to be bold with your identity when you have “irrevocable income,” like Charlie Copeland, or family backing like Burris (implicit or explicit). Or several other GOP’ers.
But it is wrong to hide behind your money and fault others for not revealing their identity.
So angry, sometimes disruptive protesting was perfectly OK when Bush was President and liberals were doing it, but now that the roles are reversed you’re crying foul and complaining about violence?
Spare me the faux outrage.
Protesting is what you do when the Powers That Be won’t listen to you. Disrupting town hall meetings is what you do when you’ve been listened to and found wanting.
It’s easy to spare you, Mike: Just leave.
Right, and under 8 years of Bush liberal protesters were never violent or disruptive…….
Careful Geezer. Telling me to leave is a bannable offense at DE liberal, or at least it was under the old, non-published “rules.”
‘Bulo has NO idea about this Cahill/Schaeffer thing.
It was an analogy, bulo. Many, many people were supporting Cahill in this argument, but it all seems to have evaporated in convenience over the years. Hell, I think we were all unified in wanting Schaeffer out. BTW, do you really have no idea what happened in this case of anony slandering Cahill? It was HUGE and also brought the state of Delaware into the glorious world of blogging, thanks to Stupid And Wrong.
FWIW, I don’t support “outing”, but I fully believe that if you are going to lob character-bombs, hiding behing anonymity is utter crap and cowardly.
“Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge during the Clinton years?”
I suggest you read up on those cases and the governments role in them.
Uh-oh:
Burris:
Smitty wrote: “BTW, do you really have no idea what happened in this case of anony slandering Cahill?”
Bulo does not, and it has nothing to do with CRI. ‘Bulo came relatively late to this blogging game, seriously. Is false equivalencies all you have? Quit changing the subject. And ‘bulo has not lobbed any ‘character bombs’. Quit making claims you can’t support. Affability is no substitute for accuracy.
You don’t understand, Mike: I fully supported government wiping out those nests of vipers. And when they come after you, I’ll be for that, too.
As for leaving, I find it humorous, in a not-funny way, that you would come into someone else’s house and tell them what dialogue to engage in. Nobody cares what you think we should talk about.
Picking on him how? By printing his resume?
“You don’t understand, Mike: I fully supported government wiping out those nests of vipers. And when they come after you, I’ll be for that, too.”
Good to know you’re an authoritarian statist masaquerading as a “progressive” & “tolerant” liberal.
I would suggest you educate yourself on those cases, but that would require you to think and to possibly re-evaluate your beliefs and prejudices.
As for leaving, I’m just informing you of the rules of these oh so tolerant Delaware Liberals.
Clarification. YOU have not done the character bombs. On that point, I was referring to K and his post on Garret. I could have been clearer about that and I apologize for the misconception. In the whole picture, and I believe this, the first domino was toppled with your first CRI post. I said then, and I still look at it this way, it would not have mattered one freaking bit what Copeland would have replied, if it didn’t fit the mold, it was going to be wrong. To me, it was obvious this was going to go badly, no matter your intent. I don’t think you brought Garret’s name into this with any mal-intent. I really believe that. It was obvious, though, with the axes to grind on both sides, that someone was going to take that ball and run. What I didn’t expect was for it to be K. That was out of character for his history and disappointing. It’s also why I attempted to refrain on it until today. I hate what has happened since and I commented on that on DP. I have no ill-will towards you, El Som, and I apologize if it came off that way.
BushCo never let the protesters anywhere near him — you had to show your Loyal Repub Papers to get into a Bush event. And, of course, you can’t produce any evidence of massive hooliganism at Bush events. The best you’ll come up with is Code Pink, which didn’t get near Bush (certainly not near enough to throw shoes) and is not embraced by the Dem rank and file and the base who must be obeyed.
kavips’s post was fine, until the resume part. The only reason to mention the resume would be to establish that Woz is a Republican operative.
But analyzing the success or failure of each project was over the top. Heck, anyone who takes on responsibility for anything in the Delaware GOP is on a suicide mission.
“I would suggest you educate yourself on those cases, but that would require you to think and to possibly re-evaluate your beliefs and prejudices.”
I have. They reinforced my prejudices against people like you. And I never professed to be either “progressive” nor “tolerant.” I am not a statist. I just think armed morons should be controlled, just like rabid animals.
~ He’s trying to cover his own sorry ass by trying to silence the critics. By outing them, if necessary. ~
Bulo and your posts “exposing” CRI weren’t an attempt to silence them or at the least, discredit anything they would have the nerve to do in the future?
Maybe it’s time to go over CRIs sins to date: They posted state spending online, and they’re not liberals.
Somehow I don’t think Jesus would get back up on the cross for that stuff….
You follow “I am not a statist” with “I just think armed morons should be controlled, just like rabid animals.”
Thanks for proving my point for me.
Care to change “armed morons” to “liberal bloggers who say all Republicans should be lined up and shot?” Yeah, didn’t think so.
Your bigotry and intolerance are showing.
Wrong again, Smitty. ‘Bulo asked a series of questions. Specific questions requiring specific answers. Based on a pretty complete set of facts.
The argument that it was inevitable it would get out of hand is ludicrous. By that standard, any legitimate inquiry citing facts and raising questions is off-limits. ‘Bulo indeed hoped that real answers to his questions would be forthcoming. Until or unless those real answers are forthcoming, Smitty’s assertions that they would never be accepted are mere assertions.
Instead of answers, ‘bulo got a pushback from surrogates saying, in effect, that it’s nobody’s business, ‘bulo’s a liar (Burrito’s words, no rebuttal from the ‘ombudsman’), and he’d better shut up or he’d be outed. That’s when it started ‘going badly’, not when K wrote his piece (and granted, it’s a piece ‘bulo would not have written). In the Smitty World of false equivalencies, if only ‘bulo had not asked such probing questions, everyone could sit down for beers and everything would be great. Maybe so, but, then, the truth would never come out.
Smitty is not the Jimmy Carter of the Blogosphere, he is the David ‘Bipartisanship No Matter What’ Broder of the Blogosphere. Admirable sentiments but sadly dated.
From the beginning, ‘bulo has sought truthful and verifiable answers to his questions. Since it appears that what passes for the media around here has been silenced, coopted, or just doesn’t care, ‘bulo will continue to investigate.
The louder the thugs and cowards intimidate anyone looking for answers, the more motivated El Somnambulo will be to get those answers.
If they have nothing to hide, Maria, they wouldn’t have reacted as badly as they did.
If CRI wanted to do nothing beyond post state and school spending online, it wouldn’t need all those conservative values in its mission statement. If that was all it wanted to do, it could have had bipartisan AND nonpartisan support. Therefore, it seems fair to conclude it does NOT want to do only those things.
So it’s not a story until someone gets hurt? Nice journalistic standard there.
mike w.- Ruby Ridge was George Herbert Walker Bush, not Mighty King Bill.
“you can’t produce any evidence of massive hooliganism at Bush events”
Really? There are plenty of instances of “massive hooliganism” committed by liberal protesters during Bush’s 8 years. Do you deny this?
Maria, really, you can’t be this dense. The problem with CRI is that they are liars, pretending to be a nonpartisan group whose only interest is detailing how much the state spends. Instead they are a hyperpartisan group funded by Republicans. That is a misrepresentation, and that is our problem with CRI. And Burris decided to silence a person revealing the activities of the partisans running this supposed nonpartisan group. And you are defending it.
Like I said, conservative thuggery at its finest.
Geezer, now that Kavips is hurt is it a story?
Maybe it’s time to go over CRIs sins to date: They posted state spending online, and they’re not liberals.
Don’t forget, they set up Charlie Copeland to grandstand falsely about how Markell was stonewalling over the audits (he wasn’t). Which I take to be a foreshadowing of how CRI plans to support Charlie in some forthcoming campaign.
Plus, the pretense of nonpartisanship, while not a ‘sin,’ was overdue for some puncturing.
Maria – yes, I know that. Geezer was the one who attributed both to Clinton. I was quoting him.
Geezer, again, CRIs only sins to date are 1) they posted government spending online and 2) they’re not liberals or Democrats.
By your “journalistic standards” it seems that every organization that opens its door needs to be immediately exposed, after all, someday they may “hurt” someone.
There was once a Democrat President who believed in America.
he said “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
Today there is a Democrat President who doesn’t particularly believe in America.
His cohorts in the Democrat Party say “Wah! Those Republicans are mean to us!”
Pussies.
Maria and Burris defending CRI…weird
Iz sho der aint no conneckshun. Jist a coinky dink iz all. 2 peeps in da know, proudly rethuglicans, defindin a non partisan tink tank that iz run by a bunch of republicanz
crazy, craz, crazy
sell it Maria, people will buy it sista!
Remember RWR, dissent is only patriotic when liberals are the dissenters. When conservatives are protesting folks whine about how free speech is actually Republican fearmongering and “thuggery.”
DD, how are CRI “liars”? They post all of their board members and their key employees under that big “ABOUT US” icon on their homepage.
Maybe it’s time to go over CRIs sins to date: They posted state spending online, and they’re not liberals.
Which, of course, is quite wrong and not the take away from any of the articles written here. Which you either didn’t read or are deliberately misrepresenting.
And of course, no one really refuted anything we wrote, either. You’d think with all of these people who know all kinds of other CRI details who have all of these blogs about that they’d actually refute the detail — not just show up to misrepresent it.
I didn’t say Clinton did anything. I said nests of armed morons should be treated like nests of rabid animals. Reading isn’t your strong suit, I see.
“Care to change “armed morons” to “liberal bloggers who say all Republicans should be lined up and shot?” Yeah, didn’t think so.”
Liberal bloggers tend not to be armed. Not the same as Ruby Ridge or Waco at all. Analogies aren’t your strong suit, either.
cass thanks for reminding me of their other, horrifying sin, they didn’t call themselves by your preferred label, “CONSERVATIVE”.
No, actually it was me (not Maria or Geezer) who attributed Ruby Ridge and Waco to Clinton. When I err, I take responsibility. RR was 1992, late in GHWB’s term. Waco was Feb-Apr 93, early in Clinton’s term, but had been brewing for years. All I meant to do was point out the history of violent, armed, anti-government sentiment and action among those on the disaffected, religious right. This is what is currently being tapped by the tea party/town hall hooligan movement.
Disingenious, Maria. Or does being a Conservative mean you get to lie with impunity?
They don’t call themselves center-right, either — just relying on the usual dog-whistle BS to bypass currently toxic labels.
What does “believe in America” mean?
And how does screaming at legislators so that they can’t answer questions or speak to their constituents demonstrate belief in America?
….oh, wait, “believe in America” is just a talking point….sorry for expecting a reasoned answer…..
Threats of violence are threats of violence, are they not Geezer? Or do you have different standards for Conservative threats vs. Liberal threats?
I think we all know the answer. You are a hypocrite.
Right, which is why these “tea parties” have been largely non-violent. Hell, I know people who went to such protests armed (I know, the HORROR) and nothing happened, except of course that they got to exercize their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights at the same time.
“By your “journalistic standards” it seems that every organization that opens its door needs to be immediately exposed, after all, someday they may “hurt” someone.”
Exposed? As you say, it was all public knowledge. The ones with something to explain are those who think it’s inappropriate to point out the ties CRI has to the Delaware GOP. You might not think any of that is news; Democrats have a different opinion.
What you’re basically saying is, “I don’t think it’s a story, so you’re stirring up trouble by printing it.” Give me a break.
“Threats of violence are threats of violence, are they not Geezer?”
I don’t think so. Neither does the Secret Service. Lots of people blurt out “I’d like to kill (fill in the blank)” without having any such intent, and those people aren’t charged with anything.
“Or do you have different standards for Conservative threats vs. Liberal threats?”
Yes. Armed people pose a threat to me; unarmed ones don’t.
And I disagree that all Republicans should be lined up and shot. Just the gun-crazy ones, like those at Ruby Ridge.
cass, maybe they wanted to shed those “toxic labels” because they’re just that, toxic. Kind of like when people started dumping “liberal” for “progressive”. That doesn’t make what they’re doing wrong.
And DD, what lies? I have yet to see where CRI has lied. Is the state spending they’ve posted inaccurate?
This entire episode has been disgraceful, from start to finish.
I said nests of armed morons should be treated like nests of rabid animals.
In other words, killed.
Nice to know what you believe should happen to political dissenters who dare to exercise both their First and Second Amendment rights.
I believe a few weeks back you folks here called such rhetoric “eliminationist”. Today you engage in it.
That doesn’t make what they’re doing wrong.
Yeah, actually, it does. It gets the media to not label them as center-right or conservative and to rely on the “non-partisan” bit. That is dishonest, knowing full well that if WDEL was using CRI data and saying that they are a center-right or conservative think tank that they wouldn’t get much attention.
“This entire episode has been disgraceful, from start to finish.”
You’re making yourself look silly. How was printing material already on the public record “disgraceful”? Are you saying it’s a disgrace to be a Republican?
Of course you folks all criticized things like this over the last eight years, didn’t you?
“And I disagree that all Republicans should be lined up and shot. Just the gun-crazy ones, like those at Ruby Ridge.”
OK, for the sake of argument (and to expose your hypocrisy) let’s modify that a bit.
“I disagree that all liberals should be lined up and shot, just the bat-shit insane hoplophobes, like those at Delaware Liberal.”
Threats of violence are threats of violence, and threats, nor actual acts of violence require a gun. Also, your bigotry is showing again.
Smitty World of false equivalencies
The equivalency, again, was on what that led to in the character degragation of Garret, which was a spin-off of your posts. No? It was correlated to your posts by K, himself. Hey, sorry if you don’t know squat about the Cahill-Schaeffer fiasco, but it was huge news in this entire state several years ago that the News Journal gave great coverage to. Ex-Smyrna Mayor Mark Schaeffer and his ill-advised antics (putting it politely) inspired probably the grand-daddy of blogging in this state (Stupid and Wrong) to which many of the existing bloggers give great credit. With the longevity of involvement you have with this state, I apologize in advance that I have a hard time believing that you are oblivious to the reference of when Cahill took anony (supposedly Schaeffer’s daughter-in-law) to court. I don’t think you, El Som, did anything in that equivalency, other than INADVERTANTLY giving K the motivation to do so. SO, bringing it all back, the posts led to referencing Garret, at which K took it upon himself to make great detail disparging said-Garret.
Hey, you have a beef and concern with Charlie? Yeah, bring it up. But from the tizzy it created, it was obvious that it was going south. While you may have accepted an answer from him (a point I am only now conceding), I still think it would have failed here. You easily could have retained control of the direction of that, but where I roll my eyes is that you passively washed your hands of it being a witch hunt, whereas you had zero problem with any other contributor or commenter taking it to a vendetta type of level. That is where I think any possibility of engagement of him was lost. You are too damned smart for me to believe that you didn’t see that.
I don’t know, El. I am fatigued of this fighting. I think all sides share culpability and I hate what has gone down, but there is too much desire to blame the other person. People need to grow the fuck up and look at all their footprints amongst the massacre.
Not to mention this stuff.
Geezer, and for the record I know exactly who you are, don’t put words in my mouth.
“Nice to know what you believe should happen to political dissenters who dare to exercise both their First and Second Amendment rights.”
Are you saying that any political dissenter who owns guns is an armed moron? Because I didn’t.
And you would certainly have supported the killing of morons like this one for seeking to hurt the president politcically and change the congress, right?
So let me get this straight. A right-wing think tank has connections to the Rethuglican Party, and although they haven’t done anything partisan, they should be condemned? Is that any crazier than the birthers?
Think tanks all over the country get cited as nonpartisan everyday even though they lean to one side or the other. I don’t get all the excitement.
We have real problems in this country, people.
It is certainly implied in your statement, geezer.
But then again, we tend to find that you liberals are the very sort of eliminationists that were criticized here some time back. Scratch a liberal, find a totalitarian.
“Scratch a liberal, find a totalitarian”
I couldn’t agree more. It is especially applicable to the DE Liberal crowd.
maria,
Geezer, and for the record I know exactly who you are, don’t put words in my mouth.
what is it with Republicans wanting to out people? I just don’t get the satisfaction. You want to damage the person because you don’t like what they are saying?
You and Burris both are really making a name for yourselves. I really don’t get it.
Talk about ironic, Mike Matthews, Maria Evans and Dave Burris all worked together.
sad, just Sad maria.
Actually, outing is a particularly liberal tactic. Look at what happens to gay conservatives.
I am not one of the “DE liberal crowd.” I do not post here except in comments, don’t know any of the people here except for Jason, and disagree with them regularly, though I don’t get a hard-on about it like you two.
Did you guys run out of straw on your big, manly, he-man farms, so you’re looking for straw men here?
Yes, I am a bigot. I hate people like you two. So what?
Maybe Smitty is so fatigued b/c he keeps straying so far from the subject at hand. ‘Bulo only wants answers to the questions he has asked, plus the questions Cassandra raised about CRI’s ties to a 50-state network of Rethug-backed think tanks masquerading as ‘non-partisan’ purveyors of objective information instead of propagandists.
In asking these questions over and over again, all ‘bulo has seen in response are evasions, dead-ends (some DC-based Dem think-tank, Markell must be behind it, something that happened in Smyrna, Burrito’s struggles with his self-esteem as justification for outing), and outright statements that it’s nobody’s business.
The Beast Who Slumbers is fatigued as well, and will close with this pointed request (and you know how he tries to steer clear of profanity here):
JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS, WILL YA?
Think tanks all over the country get cited as nonpartisan everyday even though they lean to one side or the other.
No, actually, they don’t.
When was the last time you heard the AEI or Heritage being cited as nonpartisan?
RwR,
Using the gay conservatives argument is a bit much. I am not for outing gay conservatives. I’m only for outing gay conservatives whose voting records and or sponsored legislation are HYPOCRITICAL of the lives they lead. Absolutely. If you’ve got a closeted homo conservative who’s putting forth legislation or voting yes on pieces of shit like DOMA, then I do feel it’s absolutely necessary to out the person ONLY IF the evidence is 100% locked down.
Sorry, they can’t have it both ways. Spotlights must be shown on hypocrisy.
Let’s just put it like this: I am not getting involved in this latest blogospheric brouhaha. It doesn’t interest me. I will say this: Had CRI’s actions been relegated to SIMPLY publishing the state’s spending online — and with NO ancillary, obviously partisan-hackery blog postings, position papers, etc. — then I’d be fine with it all. However, Cass’s and ‘Bulo’s work on the subject has been indisputable. CRI is a think-tank that isn’t merely putting forth impartial data. They’re putting forth bullshit opinion.
DV I didn’t “out” Geezer. You need to step back.
~”You want to damage the person because you don’t like what they are saying?”~
Wasn’t that exactly my point about DLs “expose” on CRI and kavips follow up? Yeah, it was exactly my point, glad you get it.
Maria, there’s a world of difference between the actions of a non-profit group hiding its roots to misrepresent its intent (and to be quoted as a “non-partisan” group when its staff, mission statement and possibly funding are right-wing) and a blogger hiding his/her identity.
Yes, lots of people might realize who I am, but I will neither confirm nor deny those rumors. I adopted the handle because someone was using what I wrote to try to have me fired. If it weren’t for that I would use my real name. Ironically, the person who tried to get me fired was upset over the same thing you guys are — I wrote about the person’s background to give context to the person’s current statements and to challenge the person’s credentials.
I regret not being able to post under my own name, because I strongly prefer to take credit/blame for what I write. Unfortunately that would put my job and my family’s well-being at risk.
It’s the same reason, I suspect, that Greg posts as “Rhymes With Right,” and does not reveal his last name on his blog — he’s a public employee, and people who disagree with him could try to make trouble for him at work. I also suspect that, in a perfect world where he did not have to worry about such things, he would post under his entire name.
Yes, I am a bigot. I hate people like you two. So what?
Good, admitting you have a problem is the 1st step to recovery. Or maybe someone should just put you down like a rabid dog, right?
Actually, there is nothing hypocritical about being gay and opposing gay marriage.
I might accept your argument if you were arguing that someone was for laws banning sodomy while engaging in it, but that isn’t the argument you make. But being gay and supporting the traditional definition of marriage is not hypocritical.
Maria: If I post “what you’re basically saying is…”, it means that’s how I’m interpreting what you said. “Putting words in your mouth” is not the intent, nor was it really a case of that, because I didn’t jump from there to “that must mean you think…” or anything speculative. I was trying to boil away the rhetoric to get at the root of your position.
So explain for me: How is my interpretation off-base?
“Good, admitting you have a problem is the 1st step to recovery. Or maybe someone should just put you down like a rabid dog, right?”
I’m not such a pussy that I”m going to run screaming from the room because you think I should be put down.
By the way, interesting that you consider yourself a moron, since I pointedly said that I wasn’t talking about all gun owners.
And if you’re going to shit on people who acknowledge their bigotry, you should acknowledge you’re a step behind me. You two refuse to even acknowledge your bigotry. I could point to a thousand statements by you two to show you’re biased against liberals — what of it?
So why don’t you two go down to the firing range and pump each other’s shotguns?
Oy freaking vey. ‘bulo, I even added in one of the comment threads that I too would like to see the questions answered. I also added that I didn’t think they would, because of what surrounded it (see my last comment). One of the allegations, that it was family-funded, was presented by Jason to which Charlie said he was not aware (amongst the other commentary). It was immediately deemed dishonest. To my point, no matter what would be answered, it won’t be good enough, unless it fits the predetermined truth. I have not yet, nor will do so, defend CRI. My point today has been around the assertion that if anyone intends to disparage charcter of people (Garret – I know people want to debate him being a private or public person) they are wrong morally to do so as an anony figure. I cited Cahill because that is an infamous case that represents exactly that point.
So, would I too like to see the questions answered? Yes, I would. Put the pitchforks away, though.
Do I think it was wrong that K took such exception to Garret and made great detail about it? Yup, I sure do.
Do I think the outing was wrong? Yup. Have I commented on it? Yup. It’s over on DP, the blog that has been removed from the blogroll.
“Actually, there is nothing hypocritical about being gay and opposing gay marriage.”
Correct. This is not hypocrisy, it’s merely illogical and reprehensible.
And Geezer, you got that one exactly right — though my name is known publicly down here. I was, in fact, the target of several attempts by “tolerant” “liberals” to have me fired from my job teaching high school social studies because of my political activity and my blogging.
Fortunately, my principal and my superintendent both know the law and the constitution as they relate to such matters, and have assured me that I will suffer no harm in the workplace for my blogging or my activity with the GOP.
Sadly, that was not always the case in my district. About 15 years ago, the daughter of one of the teachers at my school was murdered by a pair of illegal immigrant gang-bangers who immediately fled to Mexico (which would not extradite them because they faced the death penalty). She spoke out in the press about the need for greater border control, the need to deport illegal immigrants, and the crime problem caused by many illegals. The principal at the time (the son of a pair of illegals) attempted to fire her, and did succeed in getting her transferred out of the school where she had taught for her entire teaching career based upon her “anti-Hispanic racism” being incompatible with teaching in a school that was 80% (now 90%) Hispanic.
If one believes that marriage is properly between one man and one woman, there is nothing illogical about wanting that definition written into law — even if one is gay.
Neither is it reprehensible.
Except, of course, if you think with your genitalia and not your brain. Would that be you, Mr. Matthews?
Smitty, I must disagree. Garrett Wozniak is in the public arena — he’s running a non-partisan think tank. Kavips’ post might have been in poor taste, but take away the nasty personal quality of the remarks and the facts stay unchzanged — they’re the same facts anybody’s search for that information would turn up. And if the folks at CRI can’t take this very tepid amount of heat, they should not get into the kitchen business.
el blahblahblah wants the answers he wants to hear.
he won’t be happy until Charlies answers match el blah’s preconceptions.
~ “I regret not being able to post under my own name, because I strongly prefer to take credit/blame for what I write. Unfortunately that would put my job and my family’s well-being at risk.” ~
I’ve had to face lots of people who were mightily angry with me for stuff I’ve posted. I’ve had people yell at me in public when I was with my kid, I’ve had people threaten me, and I’m currently sitting unemployed in Sussex County. Let me cry a tear for you.
Saying you are a non-partisan think tank when in fact CRI is a partisan think tank is disingenous at best. Saying others do it too is no argument. Why not be honest and join the ranks of conservative think tanks who are proud of their work attempting to change policy wirh conservative principles. CATO and the Heritage Foundation come to mind among many others on the right and left. At least they are honest. Why hide behind something that simply is not true. It is not non-partisan, so why say it is. Are they afraid to admit their political leanings or is there something to be gained by pretending to be something they are not. Maybe you can fool a few people with analysis that has the tag “non-partisan” attached. It’s a rather silly game.
As for Copeland (I mean his family) funding the project, who cares. Copeland is never going to win statewide office in Delaware and my guess is this is a project that will spend a fair amount of money with little upside for his political career or for Delaware. But it’s his money and any republican that can get work in politics these days should take the paycheck.
Maria,
DV I didn’t “out” Geezer. You need to step back.
no you didn’t…yet…but you dangled it in his/her face like a gun and are trying to use it as leverage. It’s wrong. You need to step back. You don’ like the message, you don’t out the messanger because of it. Period.
It’s weak. But’ it is your websites MO and it is ashame.
I’ve had to face lots of people who were mightily angry with me for stuff I’ve posted. I’ve had people yell at me in public when I was with my kid, I’ve had people threaten me, and I’m currently sitting unemployed in Sussex County. Let me cry a tear for you.
boy, I get it, so because you did what you think is right, you get to be the judge and jury for everyone else?
Greg: What I think is reprehensible would be a gay person thinking that marriage could only be a man and a woman. I agree it’s possible, which is all you were saying, but in my opinion such bifurcated reasoning is … well, maybe there’s a better word than reprehensible, but it’s the first one that sprang to mind.
And PS: As much as I hate to give you the ammo (no pun intended), the person who tried to have me fired was a left-winger.
~ “You don’ like the message, you don’t out the messanger because of it. Period.” ~
Do I have to point out, again, that this is exactly what DL has done with CRI? Guess that “MO” isn’t exclusive to any one site.
silly children should learn the difference between “partisan” and “idealogical”
oh so a guy commenting on a blog = a think tank now?
Why is it that republicans are the only ones defending a non-partisan think tank?
I get it, because we shined light on a think tank loaded with Republicans and want to see who makes up the CRI then we get what’s coming to us?
So blogs= thinktanks to Maria Evans.
Iraq still has WMD’s
9/11 is Clinton’s fault
What else do you still believe Maria?
Kavips’ post might have been in poor taste, but take away the nasty personal quality of the remarks and the facts stay unchzanged…
The point being you would have to take them away, yet he stands proudly by them. That is what brings me back to the correlation of Cahill. Granted, K did not describe Garret to the point of vile nastiness that the anony-Schaeffer did against Cahill, but still took venemous shots beyond facts that K likely would have considered carefully outside of anonymity. I guess it’s a course of civil discourse that is anything but civil. This also is the point I’ve been trying to stick to and not trying to give fuel to dodging the original quest into CRI. Right now, I am seeing them as separate issues, something I apparently have been pleading poorly to El Som.
On a side note, Geezer, you tell me. Do you know of the Cahill v anony-Schaeffer fiasco to which I refer and the now-defunct blog Stupid and Wrong?
“Let me cry a tear for you.”
Nice of you to be so understanding about it. I get all kinds of heat for what I say and write — death threats, egged house and car — and have since you were in diapers. This isn’t about heat, this is about having a boss without balls.
If you out me, I switch handles. No big deal. It will say more about you than about me.
~ “boy, I get it, so because you did what you think is right, you get to be the judge and jury for everyone else?” ~
No, that’s not “it”. In fact it’s pretty clear from your comments to me that you don’t get “it” at all.
I also want to point out that I have not endorsed the outting of anyone.
And Geezer, you’ve faced exactly nothing that I haven’t faced.
You two refuse to even acknowledge your bigotry. I could point to a thousand statements by you two to show you’re biased against liberals — what of it?
So why don’t you two go down to the firing range and pump each other’s shotguns?
You seem to lack understanding of the term “bigotry” Need a dictionary? Being biased against a particular political ideology does not make someone a bigot.
As far as pumping shotguns. If that were our thing and we wanted to do it so what? What is it with liberals and wanting to control the lives and actions of everyone who thinks differently from them or who holds different values?
Yes, Smitty, I do. It was different in an important way — I didn’t see anything about Garrett’s personal life in kavips’ post. Schaeffer was calling Cahill gay and talking about his health issue, and hiding behind a fake name to do it.
I don’t know why kavips tried to stay anonymous, but I would note that outing him changes nothing — a blogger without impressive credentials is hardly news. Whatever issues he has/had with Wozniak are his problem. All I know is that this wouldn’t be a brouhaha if CRI’s defenders hadn’t become so flustered.
The best response would have been, “Yes, they’re all Republicans. So what? Do you have a problem with Republicans supporting good-government principles?” The reaction we saw instead leads me to believe that this was, indeed, something CRI was hoping nobody would notice.
These folks have every right to set up CRI, and the folks at DL have every right to call attention to something they think is important.
“What else do you still believe Maria?”
We should ask the same of you, considering the number of times I’ve personally handed you your ass Mr. “Spoon vs. Gun.”
“As far as pumping shotguns. If that were our thing and we wanted to do it so what? What is it with liberals and wanting to control the lives and actions of everyone who thinks differently from them or who holds different values?”
I don’t. I want you to do your thing around people who will appreciate it. That ain’t us. You’re just wasting everybody’s time here. YOu have every right to come here and waste everybody’s time, and I have every right to point out that’s what you’re doing.
As far as pumping shotguns. If that were our thing and we wanted to do it so what? What is it with liberals and wanting to control the lives and actions of everyone who thinks differently from them or who holds different values?
Are you refering to choice when it comes to a womens body or gay marriage?
I think the sentence reads better like this: What is it with conservatives and wanting to control (and legislate more government interference) on the lives and actions of everyone who thinks differently from them or who holds different values?
I hear a gnat? anyone else hear it? wait, it’s coming from my ankles. [pat’s head of little toddler]
“there, there little fella. It’s nappy time. Go git your momma”
“And Geezer, you’ve faced exactly nothing that I haven’t faced.”
Bullshit, honey. You hardly know me, and to repeat, I don’t think you were paying much attention when my career started. You’re unemployed, so I should give up either my employment or commenting on blogs, all because someone blew the whistle on CRI? Not to put too fine a point on this, but F you.
Geezer, you should probably look up ‘Libel’. Mostly because I can’t stop laughing at you. It’s beginning to hurt my ribs!
Keep those hysterical comments coming!
Asshole (anon): I’ve forgotten more about libel than you’ll ever know.
DV – You know me, you’ve gone on the air with me, and if you recall, you asked me several times to call you by your real name off the air, and I refused. Do you remember why? Because I didn’t want to slip up and call you by your real name. Maybe you should think about that as you assign thoughts and motives to me.
And Geezer, don’t call me “Honey” unless you want to get thrown into the sexist pile with “sillysexistfool”.
“Being biased against a particular political ideology does not make someone a bigot.”
In that case, how am I then a bigot? Because it’s your ideology that I hate about you; I don’t know anything else about you.
I also want to point out that I have not endorsed the outting of anyone.
then what is this?
Comment by Maria Evans on 6 August 2009 at 11:45 am:
Geezer, and for the record I know exactly who you are, don’t put words in my mouth.
I get it, you were just being funny. Haha, Maria made a joke about knowing geezer. woooohooooooo Good One. I can hardly see straight from the tears of laughter.
Please Maria, you have been over to this blog to comment how many times in the past 6 months? All of a Sudden you and you el burrito go on the attack over CRI.
You areally aren’t helping thier cause at all. And you aren’t above anything going on at either website. Make that CRI, DL and OuttersRUs
Go ahead and throw me on the sexist pile. I think I’ll survive. Now how about answering the question? What’s so bad about publicizing the political ties of the people behind CRI?
So, did something happen while I was gone?
sista, sista, sista! don’t be lumpin me in with dat geezy foo who’s nut’s hang down to his neez!
Iz sorry I called u a bitch…
now on, can I call you a dick?
So, did something happen while I was gone?
Nah, nothing to see here.
(feels like Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House amongst all the chaos around him)
Also, the wingnuts on this thread are really trying to confuse the subject. The subject isn’t whose nuts are nuttier the subject is that the Republican Party is encouraging this behavior. Not only encouraging, but bragging about it as well as funding it.
So, whatever happened to having one’s words stand? Why does everybody have to keep elevating and elevating until it turns into a foodfight. Personally I find flame wars boring and self-indulgent.
Do I have to point out, again, that this is exactly what DL has done with CRI?
So — the story is changing again is it? I thought that CRI was on the up and up and there wasn’t anything to out. That it was all out there and clear as a bell and we were the paranoid ones.
Sheesh.
Quothe Geezer: “Asshole (anon): I’ve forgotten more about libel than you’ll ever know.”
I find that hard to believe, well, maybe it makes sense. You’ve probably forgotten so much that you actually believe you are right.
Btw, kudos on the name calling, it really makes you look like a serious and introspective scholar. I wonder if anyone else on DL takes you seriously?
Geezer, professional Internet Tough Guy.
I don’t generally watch the talking heads anymore because they’re all mostly full of shit, but I stopped cold last night watching this Rachel Maddow segment. Un.Fucking.Believable. Watch it now. Maddow is right: “This is what THEY do.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xlqxSRhARU
Anon – Re my quote. Conservatives do exactly that with their pet issues and liberals to it with theirs.
“Geezer, professional Internet Tough Guy”
Nah, that title belongs to DCB, formerly “Delaware’s Toughest Blogger.”
So… there is actual Swiftboater money behind the town hall crazies.
I told you we were being swiftboated.
BTW… follow Matthew’s youtube link (Maddow) and watch a takedown of these guys that puts El Som’s little CRI scribble to shame. (kidding El Som).
“I find that hard to believe, well, maybe it makes sense. You’ve probably forgotten so much that you actually believe you are right.”
Nice try, clown. Now how about telling me what you know about libel? Afraid I’m right? BTW, threatening libel is the last refuge of the person ignorant about the media.
“Btw, kudos on the name calling, it really makes you look like a serious and introspective scholar.”
Yes, I truly, truly care what a bunch of anonymous people on a blog think of me. I’m particularly worried that I won’t seem serious and scholarly. No wonder you’re laughing.
“I wonder if anyone else on DL takes you seriously?”
Most of them know who I am. YOu, not so much.
“Geezer, professional Internet Tough Guy.”
Anon, amateur internet tough guy. See how easy it is to operate at your second-grade intellectual level?
What’s the difference if say, ACORN, or a conservative lobby sends a busload of “activists” to a rally? They both have their agendas.
As for the so-called violence at the town halls, has anyone been arrested yet?
h.: A Town Hall meeting isn’t a “rally.” It’s supposed to be a Q&A session. Indeed, if you read the published advice, some of it pertains to asking actual questions, though it suggests having supporters make a ruckus while doing so.
“Protests” are staged when an elected official won’t communicate with you. Town Hall meetings are supposed to satisfy that demand. Disrupting them is a sign you don’t have anything to say.
If you don’t see the difference, it’s not our problem.
Unstable Isotope wrote: Also, the wingnuts on this thread are really trying to confuse the subject. The subject isn’t whose nuts are nuttier the subject is that the Republican Party is encouraging this behavior. Not only encouraging, but bragging about it as well as funding it.
You might have to try another day with another post. LOL
Unstable Isotope wrote: Also, the wingnuts on this thread are really trying to confuse the subject. The subject isn’t whose nuts are nuttier the subject is that the Republican Party is encouraging this behavior. Not only encouraging, but bragging about it as well as funding it.
You might have to try another day with another post. LOL
They don’t get it brother… It’s a tit for tat showing as always with some of these folks.
I don’t condone violence one way or another unless it’s in an act of self defense. Many of the posters here seem to have an answer for every time a republican goes out and says something that they turn around and say that it’s been done in the past by a liberal somewhere in the past. There’s never any apology, never any sense of wrongdoing, just the fact that it’s happened in the past, get over it. The point of the matter is there was never, EVER a dem that condoned an act of violence or urged them at every turn by making up stories of someone not being a “naturalized” citizen or of the fact that Barack hates or has a “deep seeded” hatred for white people. What’s going on right now is a call to arms because frankly, there is nothing left. Let’s keep the dialog somewhat intelligent and stick to what’s being posted. The point of the matter is there is a call, it continues and it will fuel the hatred to a boiling point until something erupts. What’s going on in this post, is a good example of it. Both sides, taking pot shots and no one really addressing the initial question that UI posted.
Again, the question is when will the right address the hate mongering? The bitterness? Come up with a solid solution or alternative to the current plan and present it in a fashion that will show what the Republican party is about. If you really think that there was anyone within the GOP that had a better solution for what’s ailing this country, I will say that the lack of communication inter-party surely lacked in the last election because no one stepped up to the proverbial plate.
“Nice try, clown. Now how about telling me what you know about libel? Afraid I’m right?”
I didn’t do other people’s homework back in school, I’m not going to do it here.
(nice try clown? c’mon Geezer, that’s hardly the vindictive name calling I expect from you. step up your rhetoric.)
By the way, you didn’t really address what I said, you just kinda…worked around it. I have to know who you are before I take you seriously? Shouldn’t facts stand by themselves? (facts are the pesky little things that usually get in the way of your reasoning.)
” Republican Party is encouraging this behavior. Not only encouraging, but bragging about it as well as funding it.”
Except that you continue to say this without offering evidence. Show hosts like Beck, Limbaugh & O’Reilly do not = “The Republican Party.” They are media just like Olbermann or Matthews are when they spew forth their vile, neverending hatred of anything Bush. When liberal media pundits attacked Bush over the last 8 years was that the Democratic Party doing it and funding it? No, it was certain talking heads in the media doing what they do. If you don’t like what they’re saying don’t watch or listen.
Oh, and isn’t that the point of the talking heads? To criticize certain people, positions, and policies with which they disagree? This is still a free country with freedom of speech, even if some liberals don’t particularly care for it when they oppose the message.
Ah, remember the days when Bush had the highest approval rating of any president . . . and then he squandered it with an ill-thought invasion of Iraq. Good times, good times.
It is abit rich for someone who never has any evidence for what he says (other than what his radio tells him) to call out someone else for not having any evidence.
So until you can live with the rules you want other people to play by, don’t be surprised if we don’t just point and laugh at the usual hypocrisy.
Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP. Why else would Republican legislators have to apologize to him when they said that he wasn’t. That makes him the leader.
However, Boehner:
Rachel discusses the lobbying group behind the protests:
Just today, Rep. Akin (MO) said this in front of a crowd:
That’s hilarious, especially considering some activists already hung Rep. Kratovil in effigy.
“It is abit rich for someone who never has any evidence for what he says.”
Poor little Cassandra. Just because someone provides evidence that you either
1. Don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand
or
2. Must willfully deny lest your belief system crumbles.
doesn’t mean that said evidence was not presented. You and Pandora have shown more willfull ignorance when presented with facts and evidence than I thought possible, yet you continue to cling to the belief that you are right, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Nemski – What the hell did that comment have to do with anything?
Why is it that DE Liberal ALWAYS blames everyone but the person responsible every time a shooting or other tragedy occurs? It’s Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly’s fault, It’s the NRA’s fault, it’s the fault of the evil “assualt weapon” or of Bush. You’ll blame anything and everyone under the sun except the person who actually committed the act. Why do you folks have some pathological need to pass the buck?
OH MY GOD, stop the presses, a white guy said the word “Lynched!”
that said evidence was not presented.
Well of course it wasn’t presented. You never present any. And if you do, it is often already discredited propaganda masquerading as data.
But we already know that you can’t tell the difference.
Hence the pointing and the laughing.
There’s always an excuse for you, isn’t there?
Boy, we haven’t even touched on gun nut!
Right Cassandra, like the FBI UCR, BJS, or CDC data that you folks consistently ignored. Tell me again who it is that doesn’t recognize evidence when it’s thrust directly in their faces?
That’s some serious projection. You accuse me of doing exactly that which you have a long history of doing.
Nemski – There you go back to your usual bullshit tactics of conflating criminals and murderers with any American who believes in a part of the Constitution which you hold in disdain.
Look Mike W, you can have as many flintlocks as you heart desires.
And you can write your thoughts as often as you like…..but not on this blog, only on parchment paper. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to modern technology under Nemski logic.
Go back to your basement.
Ah, the substantive rebuttals that DL Contributors are known for! Bravo Nemski!
You accuse me of doing exactly that which you have a long history of doing.
Thant would be bullshit. Again. You have made claims in this thread that you can’t back up, but it is telling that all you have are your grievances from months ago to point to. And your months ago grievances are officially Off Topic. You’ve written enough today that you can’t account for. So start with doing the work of backing that crap up or drop the subject.
“Thant would be bullshit. Again. You have made claims in this thread that you can’t back up.”
Like what o omnipotent one?
As far as “making claims you can’t back up.” I suggest you take your own advice.
You said of my evidence,
” it is often already discredited propaganda masquerading as data.”
Care to back that up? (I’m laughing here, because I know you don’t back shit up, but I’ll ask anyway) I would say “back up what you say or leave / shut up.” But I wouldn’t want you to get your panties in a bunch again.
Anon: What was the substance of what you said? You implied something said here was libelous. You haven’t said what that was, so it’s impossible to refute in detail, though I’m confident nothing said here would qualify.
All you did was make an ad hominem attack. I responded in kind. I mentioned that people here know who I am, and therefore know that I know quite a bit about libel law. You, not so much. Really, all you have is that you don’t like me. Get in line.
“facts are the pesky little things that usually get in the way of your reasoning”
By all means, produce one. You haven’t yet, unless I’m confusing you with another anon.
From another thread: Anything could be construed as opinion, if you phrase and write it as such. It’s like the omitting of ‘I think’ from “I think John Doe is a failure at his job.” One statement is protected and the other is not. (very very very simplified example)”
And a very, very wrong example. If this indicates your level of knowledge about libel law, you’re another internet warrior. Try taking that case to court and you’ll find out what I”m talking about.
The first thing you’ll have to prove, if you want to win any damages, is that the statement harmed John Doe’s ability to earn a living. You really think Garrett Wozniak wants to go to court and argue that he can’t make a living because someone printed his resume along with his contentions that Mr. Wozniak was a failure? Bwa ha ha ha ha! I was being kind in calling you a clown. Clowns have integrity.
Mike: Why don’t you jerk yourself off? That’s masturbation with a happy ending, as opposed to the kind you engage in here.
This may be beyond his skillset.
Much like intellectual honesty, reading comprehension, and forming rational, well thought out counterpoints to my arguments are clearly beyond yours Cassandra.
Isn’t it time for you to shoot something yet?
My wad perhaps? Thanks for the masterbation suggestion….
Let’s see if nemski or Cass can form reasoned, substantive counterpoints. Who knows? All previous evidence points to “no”, but I think I’ll take a page from their book, ignore said evidence, and rely instead on hope & change.
The fact that you are not able to recognize reasoned, substantive or counterpoints (much less all of them together) doesn’t mean that we don’t.
And don’t forget, you are not here to test anybody. Either you can back up what you say or we point and laugh.
It is that simple.
And we are pointing and laughing now.
Where’s the counterpoint in this thread cass. You haven’t responded to a damn thing. Typical for you of course.
How is FBI UCR, BJS, CDC data and more “already discredited propaganda masquerading as data?” You’re a big girl, back up what you say…..if you can.
Will you back up your assertions, or simply claim that you do so withou, you know actually doing it? My money’s on the latter.
You are warned — a second time — that months old beefs are not on topic here. You can stay on topic or you can stop now.
Or have off topic comments placed in moderation.
And as I said — you wouldn’t know reasoned, substantive or counterpoints — especially since you haven’t said anything really worth dealing with in the first place. Why? No back up — just the usually liberals do this or liberals do that. Just because you say it is so usually means that you are communicating in propaganda.
So pointing and laughing it is.
ahhh, this is the Mike W. I remember banning.
shouldn’t be long before you are gone again mike. Keep up the good work.
Ah, I see. Cassandra makes an assertion IN THIS THREAD which I kindly ask her to back up. Instead of doing so she bitches, whines & evades, threatens to put my comments in Moderation, and DV comes in to threaten banning.
Nice to see nothing has changed. Cass tells others to back up what they say, but when she’s asked to do the same she gets pissy.
Is FBI UCR Data, BJS, CDC, etc. propaganda or fact? Or does that just depend on whether or not what’s presented refutes what you say?
The same goes for Nemski. Will he discuss anything said IN THIS THREAD?
Also Cass, it would appear there are several off-topic sub-conversations going on in this thread, yet I’m the only one you threatened to muzzle.
It’s sad that you find my words and arguments so inherently threatening.
Now, do you want to get back on topic and start substantively addressing points that have been made regarding this post or not?
Look Mike W, you can have as many flintlocks as you heart desires.
Provided, of course, you are willing to limit your freedom of speech and press to only those words spoken without amplification or broadcast, and words written only with a quill pen or handmade graphite pencil. Allow full government regulation or all words written with a ball point pen, typed on a typewriter or computer, amplified through electronic means, broadcast over the airwaves or sent out through the internet.
We are still pointing and laughing — now with the extra added attraction that apparently reading what is required of you is no longer part of your skillset, either.
So keep it up — sooner or later you’ll get your impression of the Black Knight downpat. You still won’t have any arms (it’s just a flesh wound) and you’re still issuing empty challenges as the rest of the discussion passes you right by.
Pointing and laughing still.
Tis’ but a scratch! I never get tired of watching The Black Knight.
Don’t bother RWR – I said pretty much the same thing to Nemski, but he has no intention of offering a substantive counterpoint.
now with the extra added attraction that apparently reading what is required of you is no longer part of your skillset, either.
Says the person who is still not reading what I write and providing coherent responses that address what was said.
Just for those, like me, not in “the know” here is info about the Cahill case
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/cahill-v-doe-schaeffer
and here
http://civilities.net/ScalesOfDiscourse-AnonCred
BTW Cassandra, keep on laughing, the jokes on you.
Oh no…It must be a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!