Republican Fools
Something has happened to me over the last month – I can no longer sustain my outrage over Republican idiocy. There’s just too much stupid. Here’s the latest.
Catherine Crabill, the Republican Party’s nominee for Virginia’s 99th District in the House of Delegates, gave a speech at a recent political event suggesting that Second Amendment rights could be used to defend the anti-tax Tea Party movement. The strange assertion was picked up by Virginia political blogger Not Larry Sabato.
“We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box,” Crabill said. “That’s the beauty of our Second Amendment rights … Our Second Amendment rights were to guard against tyranny.” [emphasis mine]
Not that I’m dismissing the barrage of comments like these from the GOP – I still believe they are a call to lone wolves, and, ultimately, will reap what they’re sowing.
Tags: Republican Crazy
It’s the rump party right now. I guess there’s just too much of it to sustain anger? I get pretty angry that these people with violent fantasies are treated with respect just because they are members of a major political party.
They are simply murderous sore losers, yet we are the bad guys for pointing that out.
They are the American Taliban, and these lone-wolf-nutjobs are their version of suicide bombers. Notice that the ayatollahs never commit violence — they simply whip up followers into a frenzy. This is different from Glenn Beck et al how?
It’s no different, Geezer. (although brace yourself for the faux outrage and bogus self righteousness.)
And you’re right, UI – There’s so much of it. It’s almost numbing.
treated with respect just because they are members of a major political party….
Which goes back to earlier comments about the straight-jacket of a two-party system propped up by government policies and subsidies, as well as ballot restrictions making it impossible for any third party to emerge.
In other words: Democrats in collusion with GOPers helped create the organization which would keep one of the two parties alive even if it went insane….
In other words: Democrats in collusion with GOPers helped create the organization which would keep one of the two parties alive even if it went insane….
Word, Steve, but you’ll forgive me if I don’t hold out hope for Libertarians to save us from the insanity. 😉
The comment speaks for itself. It’s inflammatory, baiting lunacy.
As far as the analysis, Dr. Newton is correct. We’re in a very tight box with only two choices, bad and worse.
HA! Yeah, P, I’m no “Libertarian” either, but it would be a nice start. In Turkey no less then 7 parties are represented in parliament and there are another 2 dozen ofiicial parties on top of that.
What we have here is doing us no favors… an Bernie Sanders and Joe Liberman don’t count… well maybe Sanders…
Hey, I’m not pimping per se for a Libertarian Party (God knows I have enough trouble with the national organization), but….
It’s what keeps the (in terms of numbers) much larger Green Party from developing into that Progressive Party that some of you are always talking about wanting on the left of the Dems….
It also keeps a Conservative Party from developing that could drain off the social conservatives from the GOP….
Think about it from a liberal perspective: if Obama’s Senate majority consisted of, say, 55 Dems and 5 Greens, then he would need to move further to the left on close cloture votes.
How much more room for real political work and compromise would there be in a hypothetical Senate of, say, 52 Dems, 35 GOP, 4 Greens, 5 Conservatives, 3 Libertarians and 1 real Independent?
But in order to achieve something like this, the problem is that the Democratic Party would have to give up many of the entrenched protections in law and regulation it now enjoys, and I don’t see that happening.
It would have to give up a lot more than that, Steve. The simple fact is that our system, based on votes in individual Congressional districts, is set up to funnel candidates toward middle positions. Parliamentary systems give seats to any party that tops a (typically fairly low) vote threshold, often 5%. So the groups that would be special interests within our two parties form separate parties in hopes of winning seats.
It’s a heckuva lot easier to get 5% of the vote than 50%.
FYI–given the location of the 99th District (Westmoreland, Prince George, and Richmond counties, mostly)–it’s very likely that this loon will be seen as the “moderate” candidate in the race….
Remember — the American Revolution was sparked primraily as a revolt against the taxation policies of the British Empire.
The patriots of 1776 did not have access to the ballot box to stop those policies.
The Second Amendment was made a part of the Bill of Rights precisely to enable the people of the United States to again throw off the yoke of oppressive government.
As such, Crabill is exactly correct in her analysis.
Pandora – this is looking like prime opportunity to whip out a copy of that email from Jud’s blast-o-mail yesterday! The needle-in-a-haystack viewpoint from the conservative right.
Smitty, maybe I should give that its own post!
RWR, you epitomize the title of this post. How sad. In this day and age, her comments are not only grossly irresponsible but stupid – given the weaponry available to the government. Please stop this nonsense. Innocent people could end up hurt.
So, RWR, you’re advocating that besides teabagging each other, you wingnuts on the right can go and shoot up the tax office, just because you’re pissed off that a black man is President? What we need to do is repeal the Second Amendment and ban the private ownership and sale of handguns.
MJ — I’m not a Democrat, so I’m not “pissed off” that a black man has risen to the highest office of the land. After all, my party freed the blacks and supported their civil rights while you folks were out keeping them down.
And better yet, MJ, we need to repeal the First Amendment and ban the Democrat Party. After all, better to eliminate the organization that most threatens the rights of Americans than to eliminate those rights.
Actually, pandora, the Framers intended for the American civilian population to have access to any weapon the military did.
“The ballot is stronger than the bullet.” Abe Lincoln. I guess they just use him as the founder of he party like Palin uses Trig.
Lincoln is right — but when the ballot fails, the bullet must remain as an option to defend freedom Imagine if the people of Iran had guns and the bullets to use them effectively.
And in any event, the figurative nature of Lincoln’s words are every bit as obvious as those of the famous quote “the pen is mightier than the sword.” I’ll match my broadsword against your Sharpie any day.
Oh, and given that Trig comment, I can only assume you are supportive of those who attack the Obama girls in precisely the same way.
Seriously, RWR, do you believe the ballot has failed? I think it’s the Republicans who failed, and paid the price at the ballot box.
The 2nd amendment states that each state can organize a militia and the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. Everything else in conjecture. Maybe they meant this for defense not offense.
And to say it was intented that the people have every weapon the government had is so fucking dumb. This is something no one could every know. It’s something you hope…
RWR is a fucking idealogical dipshit. I do love hearing the quasi libertarian, modern militia, tea party douche bags pretend like they are going to over thown the tyranical government though. It’s funny.
A real revolution at this point would require fissures in many GOVERNMENT departments. This could potentially create cracks and spliter groups WITHIN the military and intelligence angencies, etc. that could potentially stage a coup. Like what happens in Central American every 10 years. Or what could happen in Iran.
Without splits in the military establishment you can get as many dumb fuck Texan rednecks and Michigan militia rubes and teabaggers you want, you ain’t doing shit.
“The old war monger and the crazy christian milf we wanted didnt win = democracy has failed, time for guns” aka conservative speak for “the ballot failed”
Rhymey is going to open a “Whites Only” nuclear weapons boutique in Texas.
Price,
That’s Gilf..with a G.
“The Second Amendment was made a part of the Bill of Rights precisely to enable the people of the United States to again throw off the yoke of oppressive government.”
Depends on your definitions of “oppressive,” doesn’t it? Fail in your yoke-throwing and hang as traitors, right? Willing to go for it under those circumstances? Keep in mind, you people start shooting, people like me will sign up to shoot back at you. You dickwipes aren’t the only ones who know how to shoot straight, sport.
“my party freed the blacks and supported their civil rights while you folks were out keeping them down.”
Nice try, but it was Democratic presidents who ended Jim Crow, which was supported by Democratic “states’ rights” advocates. The Republican Party that freed the slaves was not the same Republican Party that existed after the end of Reconstruction.
“Actually, pandora, the Framers intended for the American civilian population to have access to any weapon the military did.”
Show me the evidence of that. I’ve read a lot of constitutional commentary from the time and have never seen such an argument put forward.
The firearms of that day amounted to cannons and unrifled firearms, both of which were so inaccurate they were used mainly as a preliminary to charges by pikemen (later bayonets) and hand-to-hand combat.
It always cracks me up when “originalists” get on these kicks. When the Constitution was being written, the Founding Fathers weren’t sure their experiment in self-government would see the turn of the century, never mind trying to foresee conditions 200+ years down the line.
They were not geniuses, and they were not idiots. Their arguments were about practical issues, not high-flown principles. Madison played very little role after the first few weeks (his great contributions were organizing the event and selling the product afterwards).
Were these men, most of them conservative in every way but their decision to revolt against the crown (not as brave as you might be led to believe in an age when it took a month for the news to reach London), around today to see the mayhem produced by modern firearms, any rational person — as opposed to “patriotic” assholes with agendas — can surmise that the language of the amendment might be different.
Any politician who believes otherwise is a proctologist preaching to a choir of assholes.
Pandora — no, I don’t believe the ballot has failed at this point. I do believe the collective wisdom of the American public failed on election day of 2008, but not the ballot.
However, I believe in an armed populace as the last best defense of American liberty — precisely as the Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did.
And Dorian, you fucking semi-literate moron, I’m not a part of the tea party set, an militia group, or even the Libertarian Party. i do, however, believe that the Second Amendment is one part of the framework of American freedom, and that weakening it weakens the rest. And i did not advocate for a revolution — other than in the hypothetical sense that one might, at some point, be an appropriate response to the heavy hand of government.
“Imagine if the people of Iran had guns and the bullets to use them effectively.”
Yes, there would be a brutal, bloody civil war, most likely resulting in millions of deaths.
Shows what kind of asshole you are that you prefer that to losing an election.
Jason — tell me, who is the father of the Obama girls? Hell, who is the father of Barack Obama and where was he born?
If you are going to play “Trig truther” like Andrew Sullivan, you legitimize all the bullshit thrown at Obama.
And A. Price — Not at all what I said.
You’re such a fucking loser cunt. What a boring caricature of the old despicable white male Pat Buchanan type. Your thoughtless recycled prefabricated garbage sickens me. I couldn’t care less what group you are or are not it. You regurgitate every goddamn stupid party line my grandfather cough up 30 years ago and pretend like you are some great fucking patriot hero. Suck my cock you prick. Go crawl back in you fucking hole you tired piece of shit.
I’m not going to argue all your points, but I do want to take one point on — the weapon that gave the Continental soldier the advantage was what came to be called the Kentucky Rifle. On the other hand, the redcoats had smooth-bores that were less accurate and had a shorter range. And those rifles were generally the private property of the soldiers who carried them.
Geezer,
When not rooting for economic disaster Wingnuts spend the day rooting for brutal, bloody civil war. They imagine themselves to be heroic and up to the task of saying “I told you so” to everyone they meet.
Well, Dorian is back to form.
RWR: Barack Obama is the father of Malia and Sasha, and he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, as proven by his birth certificate. These are facts. If you believe in something to the contrary, you believe a lie. If you repeat something to the contrary, you are a liar.
Gee, Dorian, got any more witty ripostes to lob my way? Any more deeply intellectual arguments?
or just more curse words that indicate my ninth-grade students could argue rings around you in their sleep?
You, sir, are an embarrassment to your grandfathers — and if they could have known what you would become they most certainly would have pulled out of your grandmothers rather than impregnate them with your parents.
From the Military Channel web site:
“Rifles were not the first choice for soldiers fighting in the Revolutionary War.
While they were much more accurate than muskets – all thanks to the twisted grooves, or rifling, inside the barrel that literally makes a rifle a rifle – rifles took a long time to load. Gun powder also had a tendency to quickly build up inside a muzzle-loading rifle – meaning that a rifleman had to a take precious time away from shooting and loading to clean the thing.
Since a bayonet could not be attached to a rifle, riflemen also usually carried an axe, or tomahawk, for close-quarters combat.”
Sweet Jesus — you’re a teacher? This is why I think we should kick Texas out of the union.
And when you question the parentage of Trig Palin, you do the same, Jason.
And no, I don’t root for a civil war. I merely oppose Democrats because I believe that their policies will hasten the downfall of the country by causing an economic disaster.
Gee, Geezer — what tolerance for diversity you have. Typical liberal!
Who said I was a liberal? And what’s wrong with wanting to battle your enemies?
hasten the downfall of the country by causing an economic disaster.
Hahahahahaha! Good one.
it’s getting hot in here, lets lighten the mood with some jokes:
notoriouslyconservative.com
Q. Why doesn’t Obama pray?
A. It’s impossible to read the teleprompter with your eyes closed.
Q. Why won’t Obama Messiah release his real birth certificate?
A. It got mixed in with his Rezko mortgage records and shredded.
Q. Why won’t Obama release his real birth certificate?
A. He accidentally smoked it.
Q. Why won’t Obama laugh at himself?
A. Because it would be racist.
Anagram: President Barack Hussein Obama = A Democrat speaks inane rubbish
Q. What do Obama and Osama have in common?
A. They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon.
Q. Why doesn’t Barack drink Pepsi?
A. He thinks that things go better with coke.
Q: What do you get when you cross a crooked politician with a crooked lawyer?
A: Barack Obama.
Q. Why did Jimmy Carter vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because Jimmy didn’t want to be the worst President in history.
Q. Why did Jay Leno vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because he was running out of George Bush jokes.
Q. Why did David Letterman vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because he was running out of Jay Leno’s George Bush jokes.
Q. Why did Britney Spears vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because she was running out of other crazy things to do.
Q. Why did Senator Ted Kennedy vote for Barack Obama?
A. Brain tumor.
Obama is so pretty that Bill Clinton wants to intern for him
Obama is so pretty that he gives John Edwards makeup tips
Don’t quit your day job, sport.
That’s all you got, anoni. Too bad, so sad.
anoni bring is full circle to ” I can no longer sustain my outrage over Republican idiocy. There’s just too much stupid.”
Yep, pandora. Conservatives are still reeling because they pushed f’ing moron George W. Bush as president.
I hate to do this, but the sheer amount of historical misstatement by both sides in this thread is driving me nuts.
DG–The 2nd amendment states that each state can organize a militia and the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. Everything else in conjecture. Maybe they meant this for defense not offense.
DG the 2nd Amendment says nothing about States organizing a militia; most militia companies of the time were organized by localities and not incorporated into any State framework for several more decades.
Geezer;;The firearms of that day amounted to cannons and unrifled firearms, both of which were so inaccurate they were used mainly as a preliminary to charges by pikemen (later bayonets) and hand-to-hand combat.
Just plain incorrect; yes the muskets were individually inaccurate, but volley fire was deadly.
RWR–the weapon that gave the Continental soldier the advantage was what came to be called the Kentucky Rifle. On the other hand, the redcoats had smooth-bores that were less accurate and had a shorter range.
Most Continental troops carried muskets, RWR–especially troops of the Continental Line that constituted the bulk of the long-service veterans. Rifles were used by both sides, primarily for skirmishers and sharpshooters–rarely in regiments or battalions.
Geezer–your Military Channel quote is more applicable to Napoleonic warfare than 18th Century warfare. Moreover, the skirmishers who used rifles in virtually every army of the world did not stop and clean them in battle–they usually dropped trow and pissed down the barrels–which we have attested in numerous documents, letters and drawings.
Point being: throw around all the Constitutional theories you want–it appears to be an American obsession. But take a stab at getting your history right,
SN – Fair enough on the 2nd. I was paraphrasing and botched it. I guess it really state state ‘regulated’ militia maintained or something to that affect.
As far as RWR – I learned it from my grandfather. He’d be proud.
But to rewind a bit to the original point, I just can’t stand that alarmist bullshit. Everyone is representated in Congress (even DC with no vote right). Not sure about PR. Anyway, new taxes aren’t “socialism” and public health insurance option isn’t tyranny. It’s just so fucking stupid.
Oh, by the way, I love to curse and throw vile insults but I am much, much smarter than a 9th grader.
The two partiesd at this point are two sides of the same coin. Bush spent like a liberal and Obama has a clear documented conservative side. Painting it like these two separate faction wide great breadth between is what is ignorant.
So Steve, do Americans have the right to “resort to the bullet box” if they don’t like the outcome of an election as has been argued here by RwR and the originally quoted lunatic?
This is what the Second Amendment says, since Steve did not provide that:
It would appear that Yoda wrote the Second Amendment. Who knew?
The point of debate over the meaning of the second amendment is the first and second phrases and their operation to limit the third and fourth.
There is a right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed, but is that right solely for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated state militia?
No, Steve agrees with us: you don’t have a right to the bullet box. He thinks that it is perfectly fine to say one has a right to kill people if your candidate looses at the ballot box, because that is free speech, but you do not have a right to actually do it.
No, Steve agrees with us: you don’t have a right to the bullet box. He thinks that it is perfectly fine to say one has a right to kill people if your candidate looses at the ballot box, because that is free speech, but you do not have a right to actually do it.
How about we let “Steve” speak for himself?
No, jason, I don’t believe in a right to use weapons to reverse the outcome of an election. I don’t condone political violence either by indivdiuals or the State.
DD–I can never be sure if you just don’t understand what I said (which would mean I said it poorly) or intentionally distort it for fun.
I think it is protected political speech for even idiots to stand up and make the same kind of looney-tunes pronouncements as the woman in Virginia as long as she does not cross into the line of specific illegal speech (threatening an individual with deadly force as that nutjob did with the Federal judges).
And I have never said you are the bad guys for calling people out on their speech, only that when you advocate treason charges, mass arrests and executions that you are engaging in conduct no better than theirs. Or–to put it in other terms–you are engaging in eliminationist speech to wipe out eliminationist speech; sort of the ultimate non-sequiteur.
Thanks for the exact verbage DD. Can a group of backwater racists rubes with shotguns be best described as “well regulated”? 🙂
Oh, and I never advocated treason charges, mass arrest or any other such thing. I like that people make inane inflammatory remarks. It allows me the opportunity the discharge loads of profane vicious insults at them!
Don’t think so, DG. And I’ve never advocated taking people’s guns away, but it frightens me how often (recently) this group use their guns as a means of intimidation.
If they aren’t careful, their elimination talk will result in action (some already has) that will result in their “gun grabbing” fears turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The more I think about this the more I think the key words here are WELL REGULATED. Nobody seems to discuss the first phrase…
I never advocated treason charges, mass arrest or any other such thing
No, DG, you didn’t. Others here cannot say the same.
it frightens me how often (recently) this group use their guns as a means of intimidation.
Pandora, if you follow David Neiwert’s eliminationist thesis, the use of such rhetoric is hardly recent; it in fact permeates American history.
If they aren’t careful, their elimination talk will result in action (some already has) that will result in their “gun grabbing” fears turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Meaning (to take this case) that the looney mouthings of a local politician in a conservative district provide justification for changing Constitutional protections?
I’m fascinated with how suddenly we can make a local candidate for a House of Delegates office into some sort of “they” spokesperson for any major movement.
And then next demand that everybody denounce her? Except that nobody here seemed interested in running the story, for example, of the Young Republicans’ committee woman who denounced Audra Shay….
DG–in 18th Century vocabulary, “regulated” in this sense was a synonym for “organized” and not for external control. The usage goes well back into colonial times and is multiply attested there and in the letters of the Framers during the Constitutional ratification debates.
Words change meanings over time. Prior to 1776, the word “idiot” merely meant an apolitical person; once the concept of republican virtue came into being during the Revolution, to have no interest in politics became equated with stupidity, and therefore “idiot” became, by the 1790s, a synonym for “dummy,” whereas today it is merely a synonym for “jason” 🙂
Actually, I did point out that other Republicans called out Shay and got de-friended for their efforts.
And if it were only a “the looney mouthings of a local politician in a conservative district” I’d laugh it off. But this sort of talk isn’t isolated, Steve. Worse, it’s growing rapidly. Now, one reason is probably the speed info travels in this day and age. The more people hear this talk the greater chance some looney will act.
It increases the odds, that’s all I’m saying.
No, I did not argue that you can have the right to “resort to the bullet box” if your candidate loses.
I argued that “the Second Amendment was made a part of the Bill of Rights precisely to enable the people of the United States to again throw off the yoke of oppressive government.” Big difference. The fact that your candidate loses does not make government oppressive.
Actually RWR, my folks were marching with Dr. King and were out on the line working for equal rights for all Americans. If memory serves me correctly, wasn’t it Nixon, a Rethug, who devised the southern strategy of winning over whitey? Let’s see, Jesse Helms – yep there’s a champion of equal rights. Strom Thurmond – he only slept with his slaves, I mean domestic workers. SCCOR – hmmm, another bastion of equal rights.
No, RWR, the Democrats and the DemocraTIC Party have been pushing for equal rights for all Americans for a long time. If you have to go back 140+ years to find a hero in your party for equal rights, well, that just speaks to how shallow you and your ilk are. Don’t even think about lecturing me about equal rights, bubba. Your answer, as well as that of the other teabaggers, is to take up arms and shoot the people who are “leading us down the evil road to socialism.” You are a terrorist, RWR, plain and simple.
You are a terrorist, RWR, plain and simple.
Yeah, that’s not eliminationist language.
Gee, MJ — the DemocraTICK Party has been sucking at the blood of productive Americans to give to the unproductive for generations.
And I don’t have to go back 140 year to find civil rights heroes in my party — I need need only point to Ronald Reagan, both Presidents Bush, and Clarence Thomas to find them.
And where, MJ, did I advocate that we “take up arms and shoot the people who are ‘leading us down the evil road to socialism'”?
Steve — Not to mention libelous.
But then again, dissent has been declared unpatriotic — and apparently terroristic — since 1/20/2009 at noon eastern time.
But RWR,
the DemocraTICK Party has been sucking at the blood of productive Americans to give to the unproductive for generations.
ain’t a hell of a lot better.
Wrong. Dissent has not been declared unpatriotic. Actually, I refrain from questioning anyone’s patriotism – but I do remember constantly having mine questioned when I expressed concern over going into Iraq.
Honest dissent, imo, requires honest debate. Something sorely lacking in the Republican Party.
Right, Pandora. Displeasure over an economic stimulus package and taxes does not equal tyranny. Some Republicans are acting as if this is a replay of Red Dawn with Soviet tanks mowing down the Colorado countryside. And the teabaggers are the Wolverines.
Steve… I am the one you speak of, and you are becoming like Hube here in your inability to recognize that I apologized for the “Round em up and shoot them” comments. As for treason charges, yes, I thought that wishing Bin Laden would attack America for the political gain of the Republican Party was just a tad treasonous. You disagreed and in fact in the end were right as to the absolute legal definition of treason. I still believe that those wishing that untold millions of Americans be vaporized is treasonous in spirit.
Given that you have suggested that your political opponents be murdered, you certainly qualify more for the label of terrorist than I do for merely stating why the Second Amendment was put in the Constitution — and your fellow travelers would consequently qualify as terrorist sympathizers.
Stop being an idiot, RWR. If what you accuse all of us is true… then your opinion wouldn’t be allowed to be posted here. I don’t think you’re unpatriotic. I do think you can be a jerk.
Perhaps RWR. But I admitted I was wrong and apologized. If you can do that and then get this loon from Virginia to do that, then we would be analogous. Until then… uh, not so much.
Clarence Thomas as a civil rights leader? Were you smoking crack with Marion Berry in the park or something? Thanks for that – I needed a good laugh. And today’s GOP is one huge laughfest.
Sorry you disagree, MJ — I understand that you simply consider him to be an uppity n*gg*r.
Pandora — I was trying to make a point that mere discussion of ideas isn’t terrorism, except, perhaps, to those who are too intellectually weak to hang with the discussion (and yes, that means YOU, MJ).
Beautiful. Rhymes With Spigot is dropping the N-word. I guess it was only a matter of time.
Simply pointing out what the average liberal like MJ thinks about a courageous black man who dares to stand up for what he believes.
“Just plain incorrect; yes the muskets were individually inaccurate, but volley fire was deadly.”
Really? So deadly that the total death toll for Americans in the Revolutionary War was 4,435? For a history prof, you sure are arrogant AND an asshat.
As for RwR, I notice you didn’t bother answering any of the questions I posed. You can pose as whatever you like, but we all see what a dick you are. And now that I know you’re a teacher, I see why you won’t sign your name.
Actually, I saw no question that I understood as other than rhetorical. If I missed one, please point it out.
Oh, and why do I use an on-line handle?
1) To draw a sharp line between my professional life and my online activity. Using a handle is my way of keeping my online activities out of my classroom.
2) Because writing under a pseudonym was a common practice among the Founders which I choose to emulate. Those who need to know my name do. Those who don’t need to know don’t get to.
I’m curious — does the name “Geezer” appear on your birth certificate?
DD
If I somehow missed your apology for the suggestion of trials and executions, then I do apologize. What I recall is your striking out the section; nothing else; and then a second post in which you sarcastically suggested perhaps you should be executed for calling attention to horrible behavior.
Please call my attention to the apology with a link to it, and I will “man up” as jason says. (Although being out of town it may be 12 hours or so before I get back to this.)
But in the absence of that, you folks here cannot have it both ways: condemning eliminationist rhetoric and employing it at the same time–sometimes in the same post.
Nor can you declare your treason/execution post out-of-bounds for subsequent comment when you make a joking reference to it in your own blog ground rules.
Contra Hube I never used the original “kill ’em all” post against you after you apologized for it: check the record.
Moreover, it is you who keep this thing alive by repeatedly setting up straw men in my name, as you did above:
No, Steve agrees with us: you don’t have a right to the bullet box. He thinks that it is perfectly fine to say one has a right to kill people if your candidate looses at the ballot box, because that is free speech, but you do not have a right to actually do it.
And as you did in your “Looking Glass” piece, and in innumerable other comments.
You somehow think that you get to throw stuff out there with personal impunity, but nobody else should be able to do so.
Um… Steve… Hube constantly mentions the “rounded up and kill ’em” post.
Well, DD, your so-called “apology” doesn’t really cut it, given the hypocrisy it shows.
I personally give it all the credence I give Mark Sanford’s apologies, and I suspect that Hube does the same.
Pandora–contra Hube means, um… “unlike Hube”
RWR – you’re a fucktard. You advocate killing people who levy taxes, taking up arms to overthrow a lawfully elected government. That is terrorism, asshole. And no, I don’t think that Clarence Thomas is an uppity anything. He’s an intellectual weakling who has turned his back on his race. Hell, if Scalia wasn’t on the bench telling him how to vote, Thomas would be sitting there wanking while watching Deep Throat. As a matter of fact, he probably is.
Oops, Steve! I gotta stop skimming.
MJ:
1) No, I don’t advocate killing tax officials or overthrowing the government — though i recognize the legitimate right of a people to do the latter — see the Declaration of Independence for details.
2) “Turned his back on his race”? I’d be shocked, except i learned long ago that terms like that are, in fact, liberal code for “uppity n*gg*r”. Thanks for confirming my observation.
3) As for the jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas, you might want to consider this analysis from SCOTUSBlog, a well-respected legal site:
1) No, I don’t advocate killing tax officials or overthrowing the government — if by “don’t” you mean “do.”
Just because a few greedy New England merchants and heavily indebted Southern planters proclaimed one does not mean they had any “right” to overthrow anything.
Is typing here what you do to stave off the urge to masturbate? Some of us would prefer the DL staff spend more time writing local posts and less talking to a Texan who has no stake whatever in Delaware.
The last RWR comment is really the kind of tone I object to strongly. Bringing up the right to overthrow a tyranical oppressive regime, like some fucking modern day Publius. Implicit in all of this was support for the original post where some fucking dumb shit states that this should be done at present. Violent revolution!
News flash, we are all represented now and we don’t live in a fucking colony ruled via monarchy. We have the vote. Neither Obama nor Bush are tyrants. We needn’t pretend that this right needs to be exercised today. This is the kind of goofy shit that got Lincoln killed. I believe Booth yelled it after after jumping to the stage!
Inflammatory, alarmist bullshit wrapped in the ‘untouchable’ cloak of perfect patriotism. Don’t argue or you anally rape the memory of the founding fathers. You don’t want to butt fuck the founders, do you?
Jason — show me where i advocated killing tax officials or overthrowing the government (except, in the case of the latter, in a theoretical sense).
Geezer — Then please surrender your passport and take your sorry ass to England or wherever your ancestors came from. If you can’t even get on board the principles of the Declaration of Independence, you really don’t belong here.
Oh, and sorry that you take such a parochial view of the World Wide Web.
Dorian — thanks for questioning my patriotism for supporting the principles upon which this country was founded. Now go back to anally raping your own mother.
I didn’t question yours, I said you are using a bullshit argument to defend the original post. And I never said anything about your mother. I can if you want… but yours is most surely in the grave you old piece shit… And a mother insult? I thought you were taking the high ground and I was sinking to the schoolboy shit??
You’ll never ever offend me so stop trying. You are a loser little fucking ball less racist who couldn’t bother me in the slightest. i just try to make a complete mockery out of this because if you aren’t going to add anything of substance I’ll just make this a gad damn farce. It amuses me.
Well, you and your comments are certainly farcical. I apologize for descending to your level.
And I’ll return to my original comment on the original quote — and expand upon it, which I believe to be fundamentally correct as I understand it.
1) We are blessed to live in a country where we have the ballot box available to us so we don’t have to resort to violence to change our government.
2) It is incumbent upon Americans to make use of the ballot box to prevent us from ever reaching the point where we need to resort to violence to remove a government that has so exceeded its constitutional bounds that it no longer has any regard for elections.
3) The Second Amendment is there to preserve said right, which is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. A government which does not trust the people with their guns is one which the people cannot trust with their liberties.
See, no call for murdering tax collectors. No call for the violent overthrow of the government. Just a statement of principles, which is how I understand the quote that so alarms some folks here.
Apology accepted!