Every American does.
It was a moment when we all stood together and began to heal. Everyone rallied behind the president who promised that the people responsible for the attack would be hearing from us soon.
Can you even imagine anyone accusing the president here of being a disgusting human being for using the firefighters as props in an obvious PR campaign?
Yet with this...
...some in the country did just that. A few of my Facebook friends said truly ugly things that left me speechless. It's enormously sad that these same people can't see that both photos are the result of the same type of violence...devastating...senseless...profoundly horrible. More importantly, both photos represent the best in America in the face of brutality and hatred.
Yet because the latter has to do with guns, it's pile on time and fuck you, Mr. President. I wonder how long it will be before these kids start to get harassed by the Right. It's happened before. I agree with what Nikto wrote yesterday. There's something really sick about these people. That's why I have no filters on their comments here.
Their words make our case for us.
28 comments:
The fact that you two morons can't see a difference is pretty sad and disturbing.
Surprisingly, Mark highlighted a key distinction with this sentence:
Everyone rallied behind the president who promised that the people responsible for the attack would be hearing from us soon.
President Bush went after the terrorists and their support system.
President Obama is going after people that had nothing to do with a single madman's attack, and who, in fact, are the ones willing to be prepared to oppose such an attack were one to occur near them.
President Bush: Attack the guilty.
President Obama: Attack the innocent.
And we're supposed to be okay with this?!?
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
— Benajmin Franklin
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
— Mark 12:31
Compare:
There's something really sick about these people.
Can you feel the love yet?
Come to think of it, there's another distinction. President Bush's response did not violate the Constitution. Obama's does.
1) What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
2) Is the Constitution law?
I thought false equivanence was bad? Is it only bad when the other guys do it?
1) What is the PURPOSE...
Debate.org is calling you, NMN. Send me the link when you are ready to leave your protective bubble:)
Funny that, seems that the one who will not engage ideas is the one in the bubble.
It's calling you as well, GD. I'd like to see how you do in a critical discussion about this or any other topic.
Debate.org is calling you, NMN.
YOU are the one suggesting Constitutionally related actions. That is why it is appropriate to ask YOU. I am challenging YOUR assertions, not theirs.
Apparently you can't handle it, thus the Brave Sir Robin routine.
That's why I have no filters on their comments here.
That's kind of funny considering that you don't actually read/comprehend what gets posted here.
Not to mention asking people to go somewhere else to discuss, because all you want are cheerleaders.
Not to mention asking people to go somewhere else to discuss, because all you want are cheerleaders.
Apparently you can't handle it, thus the Brave Sir Robin routine.
As I've mentioned previously, I've grown very bored of most of the comments made on here. I know what you guys are going to say so it's all very predictable. I'm not interested in cheerleaders, really, just more variety. I'm certainly doing that in the posts.
It seems to me, NMN, if you were so solid on your views, you'd be over here in a second and back here with a link to show me "how wrong I am." But, see, if you go there, then you don't have the little gang there so it's not quite as comfortable, is it? I challenge you to test your ideas outside of this blog, Kevin's blog, and any other right wing blog. Go get someone's point of view other than mine or anyone else here. If you don't, I guess I'll know how secure you are in your ideology:)
I know what you guys are going to say so it's all very predictable.
That is a problem with conversing with the voices in your head. You might enjoy the variety if you actually read some of the links, and thought about the different viewpoints.
I have to admit, I didn't actually expect the "on what basis does a state issue drivers licenses" as a retort - just because it was too childish to even come from you. But there you have it.
As I've mentioned previously, I've grown very bored of most of the comments made on here. I know what you guys are going to say so it's all very predictable.
Awww, poor baby. Reality and logic are too consistent for you? Too bad.
I guess I'll know how secure you are in your ideology
You can't even stand to engage. That demonstrates how secure YOU are in your ideology.
Heck, that's pretty much always been the case. Whenever we get to a pivotal point in a debate, you always squirrel away from the point, instead of examining your own ideology. Usually it's just Brave Sir Robin, or Straw Man, or Red Herring, or I Don't Understand The Plain Meaning Of Words, or Dancing Goal Posts. Go Away Kid Ya Bother Me is a new one, but still the Same Old S___, Different Day.
See, this is what I mean, NMN. I knew you were going to say that. Just like I also know that you made that comment to try to bait me. Then I say, "Run away? But that makes no sense. We have the same debate over and over again?" Then you say, "That's because you avoid the facts." Then I say, "But you avoided Scalia's comment and questions about the DoD." Then you say, "You have a whole host of questions you never answered"...and so on...(snoring sound)...boring...
It's pretty obvious to me that, for whatever reason, you think I have some sort of sway over people and it's your mission to "stop" me. So, you try to get me to waste my time in comments so I don't put up as many posts. Sorry, dude, it isn't going to work anymore. Besides, I'm the one with all the power here. In addition to being my blog, you can't not comment on what I write. You have to...you need to because you have become obsessed with me for some strange reason. When someone has a need that great, they're pretty much fucked.
Any time you want to challenge me to a debate on debate.org and agree to have anonymous and impartial observers vote on it, let me know. I'll be there. My profile is under the name Markadelphia. We can start with your answer to that first question of yours. Can you debate me one on one? Or do you need to have a gang with you? Of course, I'd understand if you didn't want to debate me because it's pretty played out at this point. Honestly, I'd rather have you try your crazy on someone new and see what they say.
Remember, though, it's always safer in the bubble...might not want to go out there...it's scawee...:)
So, you try to get me to waste my time in comments so I don't put up as many posts
WTF? Dude you are clueless. That is not the reason at all.
Any time you want to challenge me to a debate on debate.org
Wait, what? Don't you think it might have COMPLETELY changed the implication of pointing people to debate.org if you had bothered to say YOU would engage with someone there?
But....wait....if you spend time at debate.org will that mean you will post less? Crap, your arguments conflict again.
You keep making claims, but you can't back them up. So when I call you on it (again), it's not surprising (or different) at all.
I keep posting because you keep lying and making silly claims, and people need to know what they are.
Of course, I'd understand if you didn't want to debate me because it's pretty played out at this point.
Really? Snort! You haven't even answered SIMPLE questions asked at the BEGINNING of topics. Typically, I try to structure my questions so they don't require you to spend a significant amount of time to answer them.
For example, here's one you haven't answered:
1) What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
2) Is the Constitution law?
How long would that take to answer? 2 minutes? 5? Heck, you've even been given the answer a number of times right in comments. (By me and others.) Instead you spend more time avoiding the question than answering it.
Remember, though, it's always safer in the bubble...might not want to go out there...it's scawee...:)
You're projecting M. I gave you a TPM piece on guns that ignored too. You always ignore what real live people tell you, so that you can stay inside the bubble in your head.
I didn't ignore it, juris. I just didn't find it interesting but then again, I don't find Josh Marshall all that interesting either.
Just as a side note, I don't include you in the same category as I do NMN, GD, and Larry. You are mos def in your own category as is Haplo9.
I find your desire to go to debate.org interesting Mark.
Obviously, from your comments you feel 'ganged' up upon when multiple people argue with you. But, the one on one structure of at debate.org results in 'testing' the debate skills of the two people involved, not discovering the truth of what is actually debated. So what you are advocating is nothing more than your much criticized 'winning the argument'. Wouldn't you rather actually have a free ranging debate that attempts to discover truth rather than just discover who is the master debater?
I don't include you in the same category
At times you most certainly do. Because you are usually listening to the ji in your head. If you don't comprehend my writing - ask questions. Don't tell me what I said, particularly when it isn't what I said.
So what you are advocating is nothing more than your much criticized 'winning the argument'.
It's more along the lines not taking my word for it as well as leaving the echo chamber that is the right wing bubble. I think, NMN, in particular, needs to experience what the outside world is like and how his views would be received.
Wouldn't you rather actually have a free ranging debate that attempts to discover truth rather than just discover who is the master debater?
Well, that's what comments used to be but aren't anymore. Many of my personal friends don't want to engage you guys anymore because they think you are nuts and don't want to waste their time. Some of the things you say may not be nuts but they definitely aren't the truth. Mainly, though, I'd like to see some new blood in here with some new ideas. I'm working on that so we'll see where my efforts go.
I'm all for what you say, GD, but that's not what happens. It quickly becomes obsessively focused on me with the usual games of weasel questions, berating, childish baiting, and an attitude so unbelievably outrageous in their dishonesty and complete separation from reality and humanness that to engage them gives them fuel and, sadly, validity.
It quickly becomes obsessively focused on me with the usual games of weasel questions, berating, childish baiting, and an attitude so unbelievably outrageous in their dishonesty and complete separation from reality and humanness that to engage them gives them fuel and, sadly, validity.
I've heard it said that you get what you give.
Your discussions on Manzi didn't suffer that. Why do you expect your blind obedience to partisan bullshit to not attract the same?
focused on me
Separate your ideas from your actions. For the former, criticizing those ideas does not constitute focusing on you. As to the latter, your actions prompt such focus - there has been a lot said about how you conduct yourself - these statements are not made up out of thin air. A little self reflection would do you a world of good.
weasel questions
I've heard of and seen a definition of weasel words. I really don't think there is any such thing as a weasel question. Just because you don't like the direction the question takes you does not make that question any less valid.
berating
Occurs after repeated actions by you, as a response to those actions.
baiting
From the opposite viewpoint you own posts can be considered to be baiting those you disagree with.
attitude so unbelievably outrageous in their dishonesty
Have you proven any dishonesty let alone 'outrageous' dishonesty? Please separate real responses from the made up voices in your head you often argue against.
complete separation from reality
Reality is reality. You don't have the market cornered in that respect.
humanness
Define that. Just because someone doesn't react to something the EXACT same way you do does not negate humanness. Further, just because a person looks at a problem with logic rather than emotion does not give you a moral high ground.
There's nothing I can really add to GD's excellent comment.
I also wonder what a "weasel question" is. Is it anything like a "gotcha" question?
A weasel question is one that makes M confront an unpleasant aspect of one of his positions (within a short enough time that he can't disown said position).
It is kinda like the first rumblings of cognitive dissonance - which he immediately shakes off by disputing the validity of the question.
Juris, Did you happen to check the link? Your description sounds similar.
No actually I didn't. I was just going by the situational use of the term by M.
Oh, good, Mark. I'm glad Obama's not using using children as props. Oh wait. He is. Never mind.
Post a Comment