Voter suppression? People voting her *out* had the exact same inconvenience to deal with. It's just that they cared a whole lot and her supporters were all "meh."
Also... Insty just posted that she was on the news explaining how the Navy Yard was as full of people with guns as you can get and it didn't do any good.
'course, wasn't she also the one who explained that the larger magazines get used up when the bullets in them have been shot?
I hope she's not the same one who said to defend yourself from rape with a ball point pen or with pee.
(Anyone paying even a smidgen of attention to Fort Hood, even if they didn't know it before, knows that military and civilians state-side are not allowed to be armed while on military bases.)
...As was widely reported and tweeted Monday evening, Aaron Alexis bought his shotgun legally. By early yesterday afternoon (hours before Giron’s segment aired), various news outlets had reported that Alexis bought the firearm at Sharpshooters Small Arms Range in Lorton, Va., two days before the shooting. An attorney for the store told the media that “the store ran a federal background check on Alexis and it was approved.” More than two, actually. In addition to the background check performed by Sharpshooters Small Arms Range, Alexis also had to pass background checks in order to obtain a security clearance and a concealed-carry permit.
Clearly, universal background checks wouldn’t have made any difference in Alexis’ case.
It’s not the first time. Tucson, Ariz., shooter Jared Lee Loughner, Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho, and Aurora, Colo., shooter James Holmes all passed background checks, despite having been previously diagnosed with mental health problems.
Of course, neither Chris Hayes nor Giron’s fellow recallee John Morse did anything to keep Giron from derping into complete stupidity. Luckily for Giron, the segment aired on MSNBC, so hardly anyone actually saw her idiocy.
I've never voted absentee. Always go to the local VFW hall and schmooze with the people who are voting most of whom I know personally and the poll workers who I also know. However,...I'm tempted to try both methods next time. Just joking (NSA people who may or may not be listening in).
People voting her *out* had the exact same inconvenience to deal with. It's just that they cared a whole lot and her supporters were all "meh."
Exactly. Unless you want to categorize "your" voters as being somehow substandard, retarded and unable to cope with the daily facts of life as the rest of the country....they just didn't care enough to vote FOR you and....who knows....maybe some of "your" voters (as if you owned them bitch) voted against you.
"As it turns out, Morse and Giron sealed their fates on March 4, the day that the anti-gun bills were heard in Senate committees. At Morse’s instruction, only 90 minutes of testimony per side were allowed on each of the gun bills. As a result, hundreds of Colorado citizens were prevented from testifying even briefly. Many of them had driven hours to come to the Capitol, traveling from all over the state.
That same day, 30 Sheriffs came to testify. They too were shut out, with only a single Sheriff allowed to testify on any given bill. So while one Sheriff testified, others stood up with him in support…
When Morse shut that down, and Chairperson Giron went along, they crossed the double-red line of Colorado government. Had the seven gun control bills (one of which I testified in favor) been heard on March 4-6, instead of being rammed through committees on March 4, the recall might never have happened. It’s one thing to lose; it’s another to thing to lose when you didn’t even have the opportunity to present your reasoning. While the gun control bills were before the Senate in March, President Morse urged his caucus to stop reading emails, to stop reading letters from constituents, to stop listening to voicemails, to vote for the gun bills and ignore the constituents. Giron, presciently following this strategy, had allowed citizens to raise Second Amendment concerns at a single town hall meeting, and thereafter refused to discuss the issue at public fora."
She was dragged through the mud by your disgusting party. I don't blame her for quitting.
So, which "Democrat" politician did the dirty deed of asking her to elaborate on which forms of media she uses to inform herself of world affairs?
It's lamentable that FOX has conditioned you to think that the only thing a female professional should do to be taken seriously is to pose pretty, appear on FOX in a leather mini-skirt, and wink at the audience during a VP debate.
As usual, Balls - you have a hard time with comprehension. The issue wasn't about the death toll. The issue was about who helped bring down the Texas Bell tower killer. Clue: It wasn't just cops - it was also armed civilians.
More importantly, the issue was about twisted misrepresentations and historical inaccuracies pushed by a Media Matters writer. (Hillary Clinton's attempt at Pravda)
As usual, Balls - you have a hard time with comprehension. The issue wasn't about the death toll. The issue was about who helped bring down the Texas Bell tower killer. Clue: It wasn't just cops - it was also armed civilians.
I don't think you comprehended what I read. I said, "armed citizens "limiting" a mass shooting to "only" 16 massacred is a success?" Which means I understood that's the issue they make of it. Why they don't address how it is that the 16 dead shouldn't matter for discussion is what I wanted to know.
But you were probably too excited about someone saying the wrong thing to "Twitchy" to notice. I get it.
Ritmo never shows up here unless there's some discussion about his Messiah's incompetence or the corruption of the Democrat Party and he feels it his duty to defend such things through obfuscation and sophistry.
Have at it. What I object to is bait and switch and strawmen. Something you, dear Balls, come standard with.
What is "bait and switch"? Does Insty dictate what I must discuss about a 1966 shooting? You had your bit of fun already, now I want to know how it is that 16 dead is a great record for "citizens stopping a shooting". You know, because I'm interested in civilians beyond their use as martyrs of "freedom" for people who love their guns more.
Nice to see you decline to show interest in politi-journos having more substance. As I thought. Best not to discuss one's inherent weaknesses, I suppose.
Girdron is full of shit. When I lived in CO I voted liberal and went to the polls. She ran on an unpopular idea and lost. Now she sounds like a whiny sore loser spouting off about the shootings in DC. People like her need to STFU for the sake of her "cause."
No one is dictating anything,. You just cannot follow along in context, and offer up straw men instead. Nothing new. We are all used to it.
This is exactly what dictating is. I read the story. Got the gist of it, and then moved on from the whole boring thing to ask why Gun Lovers consider the 1966 massacre of sixteen souls a victory for civilians. I don't care about Eric Boehlert, it's your guys who are distracting the issue that I find interesting and would like to discuss, but that distracts from your dancing on the Big Lefty Guy's foible - and therefore is not worth it to you to think about at all.
it's your guys who are distracting the issue that I find interesting and would like to discuss
It's "your gals" doing the spouting. Feinstein:
This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons—including a military-style assault rifle—and kill many people in a short amount of time. When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.
Misinformed demagogue grinding hard against her hobbyhorse.
Shorter April - "You so did not understand what I was celebrating!"
April, I really do apologize for not finding Eric Boehlert more interesting. I'm sure he does many bad things, and I'm really sorry for not being very interested in dissecting, in full glory, just what a sad, sorry and willfully uninformed person he is.
I promise I will do a better job in the future of finding the foibles of a pundit more interesting. I really do.
I'm almost crying at my shortcoming right now. You just don't know how painful this is to me, my inability to find liars, the uninformed or propagandists more interesting. I really hope to do a better job in the future of it. Maybe the other tabloid articles in Twitchy will help.
Sounds like you're getting kind of emotional, Raylan.
What's the issue here anyway? I'm sure it must be important to me, seeing as how ed's appointed me Public Opinion Lawyer for All Democrats. Did Feinstein botch a detail? That would surely be tragic. Republicans never do that. They're perfect in all they say.
Ritmo, you're usually better than this. Really! The issue with "voter suppression" was some finagling by Dems that meant the printed ballots were printed wrong and state law could not be followed and a court ordered them not be used. I'm not sure who insisted that the election not be delayed...
So now it's whine and moan because no one was able to use the mail in ballots. Calling this "suppression" is idiotic. Assuming that YOUR side is the suppressed side when the exact same process was experienced by everyone is idiotic.
Did you just see the quoted bit and spout off?
"Unless you want to categorize "your" voters as being somehow substandard, retarded and unable to cope with the daily facts of life as the rest of the country...."
This has never bothered a Democrat voter yet. Boggles the mind, it does.
Also, honestly, Ritmo... Palin didn't quit because Couric was an ass, she quit because she was hit with frivolous lawsuits, one after another, AFTER the election was all over and done with. Apparently, it wasn't enough that her ticket lost, she had to be destroyed forever as a warning or something. Every last lawsuit but the last one were entirely baseless and dismissed... and that last one was that she had started a legal defense fund and Alaskan law prohibits the governor from having a legal defense fund. (They may have fixed that by now.)
It didn't matter that she was sued for promoting the state just like a governor is supposed to do, for talking to a reporter in her office, for wearing a jacket with logos on it for Todd's race, for a photo with a salmon...
But sure, she quit after the campaign was over because Katie Couric is a bitch. Why don't you just go with that story.
Synova, if you've read anything I wrote, you might have picked up on how boring I find all this. The rest of you can spout off on a CO House race all you want. Why am I supposed to care? (Other than ed's appointment of me to the position of Defender of All Democrats in the Court of Public Opinion. Sounds like a job more for someone like Alan Colmes, though. A DINO whose job it is to defend an issue against which it serves no other purpose than to make a guy as untalented as Sean Hannity look good and triumphant in comparison. Sorry, but that's not really my thing).
As for lawsuits, since I actually did touch on that, even if they were "ALL" supposedly completely baseless (even to the plaintiffs?), so what? That's the risk of public life, and one endured by someone named "Bill Clinton" until Republicans figured out that having a permanent office of special prosecutor setting his sights on THEIR missteps would have been just frivolous enough even for them and lapsed the office. Gee, I wonder why.
Part 2. The broader issue, and why I posted it, is voter integrity. Again: why did she seem to think that she lost some lopsided portion of absentee ballots? Voter suppression, as embodied in Jim Crow south was serious matter. She has no apparent good reason to appropriate that term.
Part 2. The broader issue, and why I posted it, is voter integrity. Again: why did she seem to think that she lost some lopsided portion of absentee ballots? Voter suppression, as embodied in Jim Crow south was serious matter. She has no apparent good reason to appropriate that term.
Dude, I know nothing about this woman or any good details on went on in that regard during her/his election. But it's good to see you saying that you take the issue seriously enough to not want to face flimsy or even false charges of it.
Dirty environment = yes, I approve of carbon-based fuels;
gun love = yes, I see a threat to the second amendment as it was originally intended.
letting money trump ethics = ? You're the one who always brings up the Donald. Seriously, I see money in politics as a problem, sure. On both sides. You only see Koch.
Ok, fair enough. (I actually was concerned about being too argumentative with you on that last challenge).
But I find your acknowledgements interesting. Do you really think the "original intent" of the 2nd amendment was letting psychopaths use the type of weaponry that at least some of them have used, seeing as how say your concern is for how it was "originally intended"?
Also, we do discuss carbon a lot. But how cavalier do you think you were being about the organic compounds in Italy that were associated with cancer? Don't you think the burden should fall on industry to allow fully transparent and open, long-term population epidemiology to be studied before convincing U.S. regulators that the need to make money off a compound can't wait?
"As for lawsuits, since I actually did touch on that, even if they were "ALL" supposedly completely baseless (even to the plaintiffs?), so what? That's the risk of public life, and one endured by someone named "Bill Clinton"..."
Bill Clinton (and Hillary) have legal defense funds.
Yes, yes, yes... that is the risk of public life. That is why public people have legal defense funds and raise money from their supporters to pay the lawyers.
What part of "this was illegal in Alaska" do you not understand?
I don't think it's *still* illegal in Alaska, but it *was* illegal.
Also, plaintiffs? Because she took a picture with a fish? Wore a jacket with a logo? Talked to a reporter in her office?
I'm glad the stupid bitch lost. And Man, is she stupid. Honestly, the stupidest I've ever heard. It's embarrassing.
It thrills me to death.
And this spells bad news for Democrat gun-grabbing nuts lying bitches hell-bent on slashing through constitutional rights.
Once they get a bug up their ass they don't quit.
Don't quit.
Flat don't quit.
20 years from now we'll have this same argument, the exact same goddamn argument because Democrats never ever ever ever EVER quit.
NEVER!
Never fucking quit.
40 years from now we'll have the same argument.
If it takes generations, they're still at it.
And 140 years if they haven't prevailed and moved on to the next obsessions it will be the same argument, but a different Ritmo bustin' the same moves.
Why? Beause ...
The president of Colorado Senate was recalled. First time in Colorado history.
Let that sink in, Ritmo. Wish casting, nothing sinks in the RItmos of the world. Once fixed, that's it.
For instance, just for a joke, because I certainly will not be waiting and looking for a response, what did you learn from this Ritmo, regarding representation? Is it possible to answer what you learned from this episode about representation?
^^^ Isn't that an amusing joke? The Ritmos can learn nothing. There is nothing for them to learn. Except try harder more corruptly next time.
I watched her complain right after she lost, and she said that 60% of Colorado votes in general elections were mail in votes. I don't trust or believe results from elections where 60% are mail in votes. Not. One. Bit. Far too easy to cheat.
Voter suppression? People voting her *out* had the exact same inconvenience to deal with. It's just that they cared a whole lot and her supporters were all "meh."
Dems generally do better when the Presidency is on the ballot. When it isn't a fair number of Democratic voters either don't care or doesn't believe the election is real.
Balls - Sarah Palin never ignored her own constituents.
She quit her cushy office early. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of ignoring constituents.
Oh come on now. You clearly know why she resigned her office. She would have been sued into oblivion and would never have been able to govern effectively. Now there is a joke in there somewhere, I know, but she headed that all off at the pass and resigned. Not to mention, what happened with all of those pending lawsuits against her office? Nothing. What happened with all of the emails being scoured and looked through? Nothing. See how that kind of political hatchetry works? And your side are masters of it.
Chip, I like how you refer to "the Ritmos" of the world, as if there is a cloned collective of me. Not sure how many of us were running this sad woman's campaign, but I'm sure you could make some lightbulb jokes about it, if you had a more robust sense of humor.
Is it possible to answer what you learned from this episode about representation?
Nope. People lose elections all the time. This is only a learning lesson for people who never took a civics class. An even bigger election was (unexpectedly, according to one side's "calculus") lost in 2012. Have you learned anything about that one, Chip?
Isn't that an amusing joke? The Ritmos can learn nothing.
If only I could be the political wunderkind that a soufflé-making cartoonist thinks he is. Seriously, Chip, the track record of avocational artists who dabble in politics is not all that good, unless you disregard a certain power-hungry Austrian and a blonde from Wisconsin. So the bar's definitely low enough for anyone who tries to break through, unless they're just following in a lengthening line of the other examples of that type who failed at it.
But the next introduction you write to Plato's Republic I'll be sure to read intently. If it contains any words. Chances are, it will unfortunately just have pictures, though.
Getting parochial about Colorado is about as amusing as getting parochial about Wisconsin. If you need to "go local", here's some advice: Write about the cannabis initiative. Now that's something different and interesting to the country.
Obama lovin' Palin loathin' pot obsessin' R&B is every bit the Sullivanist he always was.
Oh no! I forgot how much of an insult that is to the guy who dangles pictures of his enemy from the pole connected to his helmet! It's like the biggest inside joke, evar, and now he's using it on me!
EPR, how far do you think your hatred of a writer a few orders of magnitude more successful (in remuneration from writing) than any of the bloggers here is going to go? Intelligent people can read and get something from reading those they disagree with and not make their reading sources into a loyalty display.
But then, I guess that's why Palin hated the question about what she reads.
Let me know which material has made it through the Comments Home censor board. I don't want to bring up ideas or reporting from people who haven't been pre-approved beforehand, ok.
@R&B: That was a pretty cheap shot at Chip at your self-deleted 5:42. Good thing you deleted that thought.
FTR, because you've not revealed anything remotely creative here beyond clever snark, you are in no credible position to judge someone else's art.
You drive my ongoing fascination with Sullivanism. R&B. No one here besides you hews so closely to his thoughts and opinions on political matters. You keep saying you're somehow different but you never show it.
@R&B: That was a pretty cheap shot at Chip at your self-deleted 5:42. Good thing you deleted that thought.
I just modified it, after all. Phrased it more "creatively", which you should like. ;-)
FTR, because you've not revealed anything remotely creative here beyond clever snark, you are in no credible position to judge someone else's art.
I guess I didn't realize that the "comments" welcomed here are supposed to be a form of visual art.
I did both that and some music in high school and beyond - to good response, but again, perhaps I misread the purpose of this site. I didn't realize it was for the purpose of art.
In any event, I wouldn't know the quality of Chip's art. Does he derive a successful living from it? And as far as clever snark goes, that seems to be the entire purpose of what the art that he does display here is about. Politicians disappearing, things coming out of people's mouths that they didn't say. Is that not snarky? Because if it isn't we might have to tell the people writing the dictionary they got it wrong. Snark doesn't have to be verbal; it can be visual and that's pretty much what Chip's stuff is all about.
You drive my ongoing fascination with Sullivanism. R&B. No one here besides you hews so closely to his thoughts and opinions on political matters. You keep saying you're somehow different but you never show it.
This is interesting. Of course, you can't claim to know as much as you would have to about Sullivan in the preceding statement unless you were somewhat obsessed with him yourself.
I don't agree with everything he writes, but he is insightful, welcomes dissent, and puts a lot of thought (and sometimes too much emotion) into what he writes. He makes it a point to read widely, which is a good habit for a writer and commenter. He's also very successful at it, and receives invitations to appear widely. I could surely excoriate him on a position here or there. But the fact that you pick him out as an icon to supposedly hate, or to avoid resembling shows just how obsessed with him you are, and that can't be healthy.
Any other writers or political analysts whose positions I should avoid emulating? I just want to play it safe.
77 comments:
She's quite eloquent!!
That reporter ripped her a new asshole. And that was CNN, the "No Guns" network.
Colorado now has Democrat cheat to win mail in voting.
No ID required!
Voter suppression is code for:
"We democrats didn't have an opportunity to cheat."
Voter suppression? People voting her *out* had the exact same inconvenience to deal with. It's just that they cared a whole lot and her supporters were all "meh."
Also... Insty just posted that she was on the news explaining how the Navy Yard was as full of people with guns as you can get and it didn't do any good.
'course, wasn't she also the one who explained that the larger magazines get used up when the bullets in them have been shot?
I hope she's not the same one who said to defend yourself from rape with a ball point pen or with pee.
(Anyone paying even a smidgen of attention to Fort Hood, even if they didn't know it before, knows that military and civilians state-side are not allowed to be armed while on military bases.)
"Goddamit, if we can't cheat, how're we supposed to win, you moron?"
A related link reveals Giron to be an ignorant fool.
This is embarrassing.
...As was widely reported and tweeted Monday evening, Aaron Alexis bought his shotgun legally. By early yesterday afternoon (hours before Giron’s segment aired), various news outlets had reported that Alexis bought the firearm at Sharpshooters Small Arms Range in Lorton, Va., two days before the shooting. An attorney for the store told the media that “the store ran a federal background check on Alexis and it was approved.”
More than two, actually. In addition to the background check performed by Sharpshooters Small Arms Range, Alexis also had to pass background checks in order to obtain a security clearance and a concealed-carry permit.
Clearly, universal background checks wouldn’t have made any difference in Alexis’ case.
It’s not the first time. Tucson, Ariz., shooter Jared Lee Loughner, Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho, and Aurora, Colo., shooter James Holmes all passed background checks, despite having been previously diagnosed with mental health problems.
Of course, neither Chris Hayes nor Giron’s fellow recallee John Morse did anything to keep Giron from derping into complete stupidity. Luckily for Giron, the segment aired on MSNBC, so hardly anyone actually saw her idiocy.
I've never voted absentee. Always go to the local VFW hall and schmooze with the people who are voting most of whom I know personally and the poll workers who I also know. However,...I'm tempted to try both methods next time. Just joking (NSA people who may or may not be listening in).
People voting her *out* had the exact same inconvenience to deal with. It's just that they cared a whole lot and her supporters were all "meh."
Exactly. Unless you want to categorize "your" voters as being somehow substandard, retarded and unable to cope with the daily facts of life as the rest of the country....they just didn't care enough to vote FOR you and....who knows....maybe some of "your" voters (as if you owned them bitch) voted against you.
Democrats. The party of professional whiners.
It's funny how the party loyalty media parade the losers around.
How dare she question the integrity of a vote certified by the same people who predicted the Romney landslide!
It's funny how the party loyalty media parade the losers around.
I know! It's just like when Sarah Palin got a job as a professional whiner for FOX News!
Dolt named Eric Beohlert makes a fool out of himself.
Good times.
I was against the recall in Wisconsin but this recall in Colorado made perfect sense.
Balls - Sarah Palin never ignored her own constituents.
I don't see what Insta-Puerile proved. That armed citizens "limiting" a mass shooting to "only" 16 massacred is a success?
Balls - Sarah Palin never ignored her own constituents.
She quit her cushy office early. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of ignoring constituents.
Ah dang.
"As it turns out, Morse and Giron sealed their fates on March 4, the day that the anti-gun bills were heard in Senate committees. At Morse’s instruction, only 90 minutes of testimony per side were allowed on each of the gun bills. As a result, hundreds of Colorado citizens were prevented from testifying even briefly. Many of them had driven hours to come to the Capitol, traveling from all over the state.
That same day, 30 Sheriffs came to testify. They too were shut out, with only a single Sheriff allowed to testify on any given bill. So while one Sheriff testified, others stood up with him in support…
When Morse shut that down, and Chairperson Giron went along, they crossed the double-red line of Colorado government. Had the seven gun control bills (one of which I testified in favor) been heard on March 4-6, instead of being rammed through committees on March 4, the recall might never have happened. It’s one thing to lose; it’s another to thing to lose when you didn’t even have the opportunity to present your reasoning. While the gun control bills were before the Senate in March, President Morse urged his caucus to stop reading emails, to stop reading letters from constituents, to stop listening to voicemails, to vote for the gun bills and ignore the constituents. Giron, presciently following this strategy, had allowed citizens to raise Second Amendment concerns at a single town hall meeting, and thereafter refused to discuss the issue at public fora."
She was dragged through the mud by your disgusting party. I don't blame her for quitting.
So, which "Democrat" politician did the dirty deed of asking her to elaborate on which forms of media she uses to inform herself of world affairs?
It's lamentable that FOX has conditioned you to think that the only thing a female professional should do to be taken seriously is to pose pretty, appear on FOX in a leather mini-skirt, and wink at the audience during a VP debate.
As usual, Balls - you have a hard time with comprehension. The issue wasn't about the death toll.
The issue was about who helped bring down the Texas Bell tower killer.
Clue: It wasn't just cops - it was also armed civilians.
More importantly, the issue was about twisted misrepresentations and historical inaccuracies pushed by a Media Matters writer. (Hillary Clinton's attempt at Pravda)
Of course the Demos love absentee ballots.
Next to illegal aliens, dead people, out of state voters, stuffed ballot boxes, and rigged voting machines, it's their favorite method of vote fraud.
PS Why doesn't Ritmo just change his nom de net to "sour grapes" and let it go?
@ my 9:31 - read the link, Balls. It describes how the CO democrats sealed their own fates.
As usual, Balls - you have a hard time with comprehension. The issue wasn't about the death toll.
The issue was about who helped bring down the Texas Bell tower killer.
Clue: It wasn't just cops - it was also armed civilians.
I don't think you comprehended what I read. I said, "armed citizens "limiting" a mass shooting to "only" 16 massacred is a success?" Which means I understood that's the issue they make of it. Why they don't address how it is that the 16 dead shouldn't matter for discussion is what I wanted to know.
But you were probably too excited about someone saying the wrong thing to "Twitchy" to notice. I get it.
Ed:
You seem to think I'm very concerned about this election issue in Colorado.
Are there any other things you feel a need to accuse me of thinking or feeling? I'd like to know in advance. Thanks.
It's quite interesting being told what I think. I'm not really used to it, but perhaps I was raised in a different way.
Which means I understood that's the issue they make of it.
Wrong.
That was not the issue.
The issue was about the historical inaccuracies pushed by a Media Matters employee.
So there's only one issue that can ever be discussed. Got it!
Ed, April's doing her own Pravda thing!
Ritmo never shows up here unless there's some discussion about his Messiah's incompetence or the corruption of the Democrat Party and he feels it his duty to defend such things through obfuscation and sophistry.
Now he's upset we've noticed it.
So ed, what are the glaring imperfections of the Republican party or the incompetence of Republican presidents that you'd prefer to discuss?
I won Miss Change The Subject in both 2007 and 2009.
I still have the tiara.
Have at it.
What I object to is bait and switch and strawmen. Something you, dear Balls, come standard with.
Tits.
btw-
I'd rather look at Sarah Palin in a leather mini skirt than just about any pantsuit wearing fema- fascist vagina-bot on the left.
Imagine Nancy Pelosi in a leather mini skirt? - bleeeck. Mind bleach.
Have at it.
What I object to is bait and switch and strawmen. Something you, dear Balls, come standard with.
What is "bait and switch"? Does Insty dictate what I must discuss about a 1966 shooting? You had your bit of fun already, now I want to know how it is that 16 dead is a great record for "citizens stopping a shooting". You know, because I'm interested in civilians beyond their use as martyrs of "freedom" for people who love their guns more.
Nice to see you decline to show interest in politi-journos having more substance. As I thought. Best not to discuss one's inherent weaknesses, I suppose.
I want to know why a Media Matter's writer is so ignorant of the truth. Not only ignorant of the truth - he willfully lied in the face of it.
That is the sickness that sits beneath all the corruption in our culture.
No one is dictating anything,. You just cannot follow along in context, and offer up straw men instead. Nothing new. We are all used to it.
You tire me. blabber on. I'm out.
Girdron is full of shit. When I lived in CO I voted liberal and went to the polls. She ran on an unpopular idea and lost. Now she sounds like a whiny sore loser spouting off about the shootings in DC. People like her need to STFU for the sake of her "cause."
Just some friendly concern trolling.
I know. You're probably more concerned with Media Matters no matter what the story is.
Oh and DiFi went off the deep end again. Could she please retire already?
@deborah: I changed my hue for you.
No one is dictating anything,. You just cannot follow along in context, and offer up straw men instead. Nothing new. We are all used to it.
This is exactly what dictating is. I read the story. Got the gist of it, and then moved on from the whole boring thing to ask why Gun Lovers consider the 1966 massacre of sixteen souls a victory for civilians. I don't care about Eric Boehlert, it's your guys who are distracting the issue that I find interesting and would like to discuss, but that distracts from your dancing on the Big Lefty Guy's foible - and therefore is not worth it to you to think about at all.
it's your guys who are distracting the issue that I find interesting and would like to discuss
It's "your gals" doing the spouting. Feinstein:
This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons—including a military-style assault rifle—and kill many people in a short amount of time. When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.
Misinformed demagogue grinding hard against her hobbyhorse.
Shorter April - "You so did not understand what I was celebrating!"
April, I really do apologize for not finding Eric Boehlert more interesting. I'm sure he does many bad things, and I'm really sorry for not being very interested in dissecting, in full glory, just what a sad, sorry and willfully uninformed person he is.
I promise I will do a better job in the future of finding the foibles of a pundit more interesting. I really do.
I'm almost crying at my shortcoming right now. You just don't know how painful this is to me, my inability to find liars, the uninformed or propagandists more interesting. I really hope to do a better job in the future of it. Maybe the other tabloid articles in Twitchy will help.
Sounds like you're getting kind of emotional, Raylan.
What's the issue here anyway? I'm sure it must be important to me, seeing as how ed's appointed me Public Opinion Lawyer for All Democrats. Did Feinstein botch a detail? That would surely be tragic. Republicans never do that. They're perfect in all they say.
Ritmo, you're usually better than this. Really! The issue with "voter suppression" was some finagling by Dems that meant the printed ballots were printed wrong and state law could not be followed and a court ordered them not be used. I'm not sure who insisted that the election not be delayed...
So now it's whine and moan because no one was able to use the mail in ballots. Calling this "suppression" is idiotic. Assuming that YOUR side is the suppressed side when the exact same process was experienced by everyone is idiotic.
Did you just see the quoted bit and spout off?
"Unless you want to categorize "your" voters as being somehow substandard, retarded and unable to cope with the daily facts of life as the rest of the country...."
This has never bothered a Democrat voter yet. Boggles the mind, it does.
Also, honestly, Ritmo... Palin didn't quit because Couric was an ass, she quit because she was hit with frivolous lawsuits, one after another, AFTER the election was all over and done with. Apparently, it wasn't enough that her ticket lost, she had to be destroyed forever as a warning or something. Every last lawsuit but the last one were entirely baseless and dismissed... and that last one was that she had started a legal defense fund and Alaskan law prohibits the governor from having a legal defense fund. (They may have fixed that by now.)
It didn't matter that she was sued for promoting the state just like a governor is supposed to do, for talking to a reporter in her office, for wearing a jacket with logos on it for Todd's race, for a photo with a salmon...
But sure, she quit after the campaign was over because Katie Couric is a bitch. Why don't you just go with that story.
Feinstein could surely use lessons in the art of accuracy from such esteemed Republicans as Paul Broun and Jon Kyl.
What's the issue here anyway?
I'm concerned about you guys losing big in 2014. If you keep pushing these toxic, unpopular measures, you will go down in flames.
Synova, if you've read anything I wrote, you might have picked up on how boring I find all this. The rest of you can spout off on a CO House race all you want. Why am I supposed to care? (Other than ed's appointment of me to the position of Defender of All Democrats in the Court of Public Opinion. Sounds like a job more for someone like Alan Colmes, though. A DINO whose job it is to defend an issue against which it serves no other purpose than to make a guy as untalented as Sean Hannity look good and triumphant in comparison. Sorry, but that's not really my thing).
As for lawsuits, since I actually did touch on that, even if they were "ALL" supposedly completely baseless (even to the plaintiffs?), so what? That's the risk of public life, and one endured by someone named "Bill Clinton" until Republicans figured out that having a permanent office of special prosecutor setting his sights on THEIR missteps would have been just frivolous enough even for them and lapsed the office. Gee, I wonder why.
What's the issue here anyway?
Part 2. The broader issue, and why I posted it, is voter integrity. Again: why did she seem to think that she lost some lopsided portion of absentee ballots? Voter suppression, as embodied in Jim Crow south was serious matter. She has no apparent good reason to appropriate that term.
I'm concerned about you guys losing big in 2014. If you keep pushing these toxic, unpopular measures, you will go down in flames.
Oh, you don't care about that. Not at all. Name one issue important to any party other than "The Republicans" that you care about.
Dirty environment, gun love, letting money trump ethics. On all the big things you're pretty much with them 100%.
If I'm wrong on that I'd really like to know how.
I'm reluctant to sound feisty but I'm really curious as to how you'd respond to that sort of a challenge, given where you seem to fall so often.
(But if you could make it snappy! [Please ;-)] I've got an extra-special, er, meeting this evening to get on with. Thanks!)
Part 2. The broader issue, and why I posted it, is voter integrity. Again: why did she seem to think that she lost some lopsided portion of absentee ballots? Voter suppression, as embodied in Jim Crow south was serious matter. She has no apparent good reason to appropriate that term.
Dude, I know nothing about this woman or any good details on went on in that regard during her/his election. But it's good to see you saying that you take the issue seriously enough to not want to face flimsy or even false charges of it.
So, I guess we're in agreement, in a way.
Dirty environment = yes, I approve of carbon-based fuels;
gun love = yes, I see a threat to the second amendment as it was originally intended.
letting money trump ethics = ? You're the one who always brings up the Donald. Seriously, I see money in politics as a problem, sure. On both sides. You only see Koch.
Ok, fair enough. (I actually was concerned about being too argumentative with you on that last challenge).
But I find your acknowledgements interesting. Do you really think the "original intent" of the 2nd amendment was letting psychopaths use the type of weaponry that at least some of them have used, seeing as how say your concern is for how it was "originally intended"?
Also, we do discuss carbon a lot. But how cavalier do you think you were being about the organic compounds in Italy that were associated with cancer? Don't you think the burden should fall on industry to allow fully transparent and open, long-term population epidemiology to be studied before convincing U.S. regulators that the need to make money off a compound can't wait?
No, Ritmo, let's keep hammering your side
Uncle Saul would just love a taste of his own medicine.
Ok ed, you can do that. Knock yourself out.
As I told Herr Chickmeister (in homage to Lemmy), I've got a less-lonely-than-you non-male to meet in ten... nine... eight...
Hasta - And I'm off! Check back later -
"As for lawsuits, since I actually did touch on that, even if they were "ALL" supposedly completely baseless (even to the plaintiffs?), so what? That's the risk of public life, and one endured by someone named "Bill Clinton"..."
Bill Clinton (and Hillary) have legal defense funds.
Yes, yes, yes... that is the risk of public life. That is why public people have legal defense funds and raise money from their supporters to pay the lawyers.
What part of "this was illegal in Alaska" do you not understand?
I don't think it's *still* illegal in Alaska, but it *was* illegal.
Also, plaintiffs? Because she took a picture with a fish? Wore a jacket with a logo? Talked to a reporter in her office?
"Synova, if you've read anything I wrote, you might have picked up on how boring I find all this."
And yet you comment how many times?
I'm glad the stupid bitch lost. And Man, is she stupid. Honestly, the stupidest I've ever heard. It's embarrassing.
It thrills me to death.
And this spells bad news for Democrat gun-grabbing nuts lying bitches hell-bent on slashing through constitutional rights.
Once they get a bug up their ass they don't quit.
Don't quit.
Flat don't quit.
20 years from now we'll have this same argument, the exact same goddamn argument because Democrats never ever ever ever EVER quit.
NEVER!
Never fucking quit.
40 years from now we'll have the same argument.
If it takes generations, they're still at it.
And 140 years if they haven't prevailed and moved on to the next obsessions it will be the same argument, but a different Ritmo bustin' the same moves.
Why? Beause ...
The president of Colorado Senate was recalled. First time in Colorado history.
Let that sink in, Ritmo. Wish casting, nothing sinks in the RItmos of the world. Once fixed, that's it.
For instance, just for a joke, because I certainly will not be waiting and looking for a response, what did you learn from this Ritmo, regarding representation? Is it possible to answer what you learned from this episode about representation?
^^^ Isn't that an amusing joke? The Ritmos can learn nothing. There is nothing for them to learn. Except try harder more corruptly next time.
As I told Herr Chickmeister (in homage to Lemmy), I've got a less-lonely-than-you non-male to meet in ten... nine... eight...
Bit childish there, ya think?
Take some deep breaths Chip.
" I've got a less-lonely-than-you non-male to meet..."
Such high standards. "Non-male" sounds a little open ended, you wild experimenter. May your horizons expand till you find your passion.
" I've got a less-lonely-than-you non-male to meet..."
Sounds grim.
There's no fun without superior loneliness, a cock and a set of cods.
@Palladian: R&B is obsessed with Koch. Cods come piecemeal, like clockwork, as in ein kleines bisschen Horrorschau
I watched her complain right after she lost, and she said that 60% of Colorado votes in general elections were mail in votes. I don't trust or believe results from elections where 60% are mail in votes. Not. One. Bit. Far too easy to cheat.
I plan on being a completely absentee voter next year: I'm just not going to bother.
Voter suppression? People voting her *out* had the exact same inconvenience to deal with. It's just that they cared a whole lot and her supporters were all "meh."
Dems generally do better when the Presidency is on the ballot. When it isn't a fair number of Democratic voters either don't care or doesn't believe the election is real.
Sweet Jeebus, Methadras! Go back to the bird crapping on your head!
Rhythm and Balls said...
Balls - Sarah Palin never ignored her own constituents.
She quit her cushy office early. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of ignoring constituents.
Oh come on now. You clearly know why she resigned her office. She would have been sued into oblivion and would never have been able to govern effectively. Now there is a joke in there somewhere, I know, but she headed that all off at the pass and resigned. Not to mention, what happened with all of those pending lawsuits against her office? Nothing. What happened with all of the emails being scoured and looked through? Nothing. See how that kind of political hatchetry works? And your side are masters of it.
Icepick said...
Sweet Jeebus, Methadras! Go back to the bird crapping on your head!
No love for Bat Boy? *sniff
"Non-male" sounds a little open ended, you wild experimenter.
Depends how many genders you regularly encounter.
Chip, I like how you refer to "the Ritmos" of the world, as if there is a cloned collective of me. Not sure how many of us were running this sad woman's campaign, but I'm sure you could make some lightbulb jokes about it, if you had a more robust sense of humor.
If you need to "go local", here's some advice: Write about the cannabis initiative.
Obama lovin' Palin loathin' pot obsessin' R&B is every bit the Sullivanist he always was.
Is it possible to answer what you learned from this episode about representation?
Nope. People lose elections all the time. This is only a learning lesson for people who never took a civics class. An even bigger election was (unexpectedly, according to one side's "calculus") lost in 2012. Have you learned anything about that one, Chip?
Isn't that an amusing joke? The Ritmos can learn nothing.
If only I could be the political wunderkind that a soufflé-making cartoonist thinks he is. Seriously, Chip, the track record of avocational artists who dabble in politics is not all that good, unless you disregard a certain power-hungry Austrian and a blonde from Wisconsin. So the bar's definitely low enough for anyone who tries to break through, unless they're just following in a lengthening line of the other examples of that type who failed at it.
But the next introduction you write to Plato's Republic I'll be sure to read intently. If it contains any words. Chances are, it will unfortunately just have pictures, though.
Getting parochial about Colorado is about as amusing as getting parochial about Wisconsin. If you need to "go local", here's some advice: Write about the cannabis initiative. Now that's something different and interesting to the country.
Last question: Do you even own a firearm?
Obama lovin' Palin loathin' pot obsessin' R&B is every bit the Sullivanist he always was.
Oh no! I forgot how much of an insult that is to the guy who dangles pictures of his enemy from the pole connected to his helmet! It's like the biggest inside joke, evar, and now he's using it on me!
EPR, how far do you think your hatred of a writer a few orders of magnitude more successful (in remuneration from writing) than any of the bloggers here is going to go? Intelligent people can read and get something from reading those they disagree with and not make their reading sources into a loyalty display.
But then, I guess that's why Palin hated the question about what she reads.
Let me know which material has made it through the Comments Home censor board. I don't want to bring up ideas or reporting from people who haven't been pre-approved beforehand, ok.
@R&B: That was a pretty cheap shot at Chip at your self-deleted 5:42. Good thing you deleted that thought.
FTR, because you've not revealed anything remotely creative here beyond clever snark, you are in no credible position to judge someone else's art.
You drive my ongoing fascination with Sullivanism. R&B. No one here besides you hews so closely to his thoughts and opinions on political matters. You keep saying you're somehow different but you never show it.
@R&B: That was a pretty cheap shot at Chip at your self-deleted 5:42. Good thing you deleted that thought.
I just modified it, after all. Phrased it more "creatively", which you should like. ;-)
FTR, because you've not revealed anything remotely creative here beyond clever snark, you are in no credible position to judge someone else's art.
I guess I didn't realize that the "comments" welcomed here are supposed to be a form of visual art.
I did both that and some music in high school and beyond - to good response, but again, perhaps I misread the purpose of this site. I didn't realize it was for the purpose of art.
In any event, I wouldn't know the quality of Chip's art. Does he derive a successful living from it? And as far as clever snark goes, that seems to be the entire purpose of what the art that he does display here is about. Politicians disappearing, things coming out of people's mouths that they didn't say. Is that not snarky? Because if it isn't we might have to tell the people writing the dictionary they got it wrong. Snark doesn't have to be verbal; it can be visual and that's pretty much what Chip's stuff is all about.
You drive my ongoing fascination with Sullivanism. R&B. No one here besides you hews so closely to his thoughts and opinions on political matters. You keep saying you're somehow different but you never show it.
This is interesting. Of course, you can't claim to know as much as you would have to about Sullivan in the preceding statement unless you were somewhat obsessed with him yourself.
I don't agree with everything he writes, but he is insightful, welcomes dissent, and puts a lot of thought (and sometimes too much emotion) into what he writes. He makes it a point to read widely, which is a good habit for a writer and commenter. He's also very successful at it, and receives invitations to appear widely. I could surely excoriate him on a position here or there. But the fact that you pick him out as an icon to supposedly hate, or to avoid resembling shows just how obsessed with him you are, and that can't be healthy.
Any other writers or political analysts whose positions I should avoid emulating? I just want to play it safe.
Any other writers or political analysts whose positions I should avoid emulating? I just want to play it safe.
Josh Marshall: hysterical hyperbole
Post a Comment