Except that it was, of course. Iraqis are allowed to have AK-47's, and the attack happened on an open street, so you don't even have the excuse of them approaching a military base. Then there's the van driver that tries to stop and deliver aid, and the soldiers chortling that they just ran over a body in an armored vehicle.
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, but it seems like Israel is getting flak for acting in a more humane way than historical standards.
Yes, standards. We operate under far different ones today, which make Israel the Biff Tannen of the Middle East. Romans invading Carthage and salting their fields might have been cool 150 BC, not so much now.
Ok. And yet the original UN partition plan to establish two states, one Arab & one Israeli, was rejected by the Arabs.
As they should have. The partition plan gave less than 40% of the population (the vast majority of whom were immigrants) almost 60% of the land. Funny how you left that part out.
And before the 1967 war, the Arabs continued to attack Israeli.
Also funny how you left out who started the 1967 war and for what reasons. Hint: it was Israel. And their stated reason was a blockade. Which means that according to Israeli logic, military attacks in response to the blockade of Gaza are perfectly justified.
I wish we could keep _unlimited_ bandwidth, but it's becoming harder and harder for the ISPs to keep up to consumer bandwidth demands.
The Japanese and their home gigabit connections put the lie to that bit of corporate propaganda. This isn't about "bandwidth hogs" and never has been. It's about executive greed and wanting to take all revenue as profit rather than upgrade their networks.
As the facts have come out, we have learned that the shooter favored Democrats over Republicans in American politics.
What's come out is that he's crazy. But this is ignoring the central point (again): this isn't about one incident, it's about a clear record of violent rhetoric not just from blogging teabaggers, but prominent Republican pundits and elected officials. See again the guy on his way to shoot up the Tides Foundation....when just about the only way anyone would have heard about the Tides Foundation was from listening to Glenn Beck.
And actually, in regard to your quote, I can think of a solid "leftist equivalent" for each of those, but I don't think I'll waste my time doing so.
Because you can't. Michelle Malkin already tried, and accumulated a nice list of nasty things said by...bloggers, but did manage to list several arrests as well. Most of which consist of yelling obscenities or throwing pies at Ann Coulter.
So, to recap: on the left you have arrests for drive by yellings from random shmoes, and on the right you have dozens of shootings over the same time period, and the now speaker of the House commenting on a Democrat voting for the HIR bill that "the Catholics will run him out of town. He may be a dead man. He can't go home to the West Side of Cincinnati." There is no equivalency here of any kind, and that's just a fact you'll have to deal with. What's funny here is that the right wing is so stuck in it's rut of intellectual dishonesty that it's talking about this bullshit about "knife to a gunfight" and "dead to me" to bother listing a real example of an unacceptable call to violence from a Democrat:
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him [sic] and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
Or, you could watch the teabaggers own video and let your lying eyes decide. But that would you and the prosecutor removing your heads from their current warm, comfortable location.
Because if a candidate is perceived as a threat to the establishment, they will be thrown under the bus. It happened to Howard Dean in 2004, and John Edwards in 2008. Makes you wonder what Obama said behind closed doors so the same didn't happen to him.
Oh ok, I guess the charges filed by the county prosecutor are based purely on an urban myth.
And Virginia's AG want's to investigate climate scientists. WYFP? Do charges equal guilt on your planet?
Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?) and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the:06 mark.) But instead of Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.
That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop talking about?
The only real mystery from the incident is why Tea Party member Gladney, who's seen up-close after the brief encounter walking around and talking to people and who appears to be injury-free, then decided to go to the hospital to treat injuries to his "knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face." All that from a two-second fall to the pavement?
Just because your point sucks, doesn't mean that I didn't understand it just fine.
I am aware that Obama didn't mean it literally, and am claiming that Palin et alia didn't either.
No, seriously, feel free to give up absurd false equivalencies at any time. "Knife to a gunfight" is an old expression for being prepared - it's not a call for violence any more than is "dead to me", which anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex knows means to shun someone.
So, where, exactly, has it been a long time political analogy to put up a map of your opponents with crosshairs scattered over it? Fortunately, for those who continue to insist on being disingenuous, Palin doubled down by saying "don't retreat, RELOAD". It's not the same level as "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest", but you have to be willfully obtuse to pretend there isn't a great deal of violent rhetoric coming from the right wing, and a total sophist to pretend that "both sides do it".
An anonymous commenter at Daily Kos and the last Republican vice presidential nominee are not equivalent, no matter how many ridiculously irresponsible members of the media would have us believe otherwise.
There is no leftist equivalent to Glenn Beck, host of a long-running nationally syndicated radio show, former host of a show on CNN and current host of a show on Fox, best-selling author, DC rally organizer, and longtime user of eliminationist rhetoric, including equating universal healthcare to rape, joking about victims of forest fires being America-hating liberals, comparing Al Gore to Hitler, condoning the murder of Michael Moore, accusing Holocaust survivor George Soros of being a Nazi collaborator, joking about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, equating immigration reform with burning US citizens alive, publicly endorsing violent revolution, and winkingly telling his viewers not to get violent, all of which amounts to a speck on the tip of a very big iceberg.
Maybe you should see a doctor about that. When a crowd slowly turns into a riot when there's ten cops for every protester, it means the cops want it to turn into a riot. Deal with it.
I'd say said show was indeed encouraging violence with such a thing.
Do you also think that Schindler's List was encouraging genocide? Just asking, since talking about something is the same as encouraging it on your planet.
Maybe if you're one of those Obama fans that counts announced intentions as accomplished accomplishments. That was signing an agreement to hand over control of the prison, not an actual handover of control. Much like Obama's promise to close Gitmo and starting to withdraw from Afghanistan this year, don't hold your breath on this one.
Detainees are now being held in the Parwan facility which is being described as much more humane, where the prisoners are assigned counsel and can challenge their incarceration
Yes, "described". When an American citizen is being subjected to psycological torture on American soil, I don't know why anyone would put much stock in how a foreign gulag is "described".
I am not a constitutional lawyer
Who needs a law degree when basic remedial reading is more than sufficient? The 5th Amendment is perfectly clear:
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Verizon is consistently rated tops in coverage, network quality, and customer service by Consumer Reports and other sources.
Saying Verizon is the best American cell phone company is like talking about the best kick in the balls that you've ever had. It might have had a more pleasant outcome than the others you may have received - but it's still a fucking kick to the balls.
That entire line of thinking was started by a few very right-wing pundits who are trying to score political points.
And put in practice by the Bush Administration.
Additionally, even though Obama is getting stymied on closing Guantanamo, AFAIK prisoners are no longer being sent there.
Now they're going to gulag #2: Bagram Prison. Same difference.
On a positive note, the NY Times reports that Obama is getting high marks from constitutional law groups for not using signing statements to override Congress's authority even though he disagrees with the Guantanamo measures present in the recently passed Defense Authorization bill. It would seem our system of checks and balances has been restored.
How is signing off on extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens restoring checks and balances?
Heck, a CBS show literally displayed a picture of Bush with "Snipers Wanted" imposed over it.
Annnnd? Was said CBS show promoting violence?
Look at Bill Ayers, who has at least some relationship with the President of the United States, and is unrepentant of the violent actions of the Weather Underground group he helped found.
Look, you have to look forty fucking years ago to find a counter-example.
Look at the violence at G20 conventions
Look at thousands of cops being unable to defend a squad car from 200 protesters. A squad car left alone on a street corner for hours....almost like they were hoping it would be vandalized so they could whine about violent protesters...huh, interesting.
Check out this instant loss of any credibility whatsoever
FTFY. Pajamas media, seriously? Okay, if we can start citing stuff from Korean Central Television. Feel free to stop pretending there's any equivalency here whatsoever.
How about a peaceful Tea Party member being sent to the hospital by union goons during the health care debate? Or maybe the unprosecuted, clear voter intimidation brought to you by club weilding Blank Panther thugs.
You mean laughable urban legends promoted by Fox News? What about them?
As opposed to the direct incitement to violence, the store-smashing peace rallies, and the effigy burnings when Bush was in office? The "Bushitler" scream fests, the "revolution" talk, etc? No blathering from crazy lefties about The Man, administration criminals that should be shot, and the rest?
You mean the BS you're pulling out of your ass? We've seen it before. When Bush got re-elected, you guys laughed it up at the liberal celebrities that didn't move to Canada. Obama gets elected, and Republican governors start openly talking of secession.
Nice try with the false equivilancy, but it's not gonna fly.
From Obama's 2008 campaign trail: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said in Philadelphia last night. "Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I've seen Eagles fans."
Uh hub. And where's your actual example of actual calls for actual violence? All you've got here is yet another lame false equivilancy. Why not bring up the "dead to me" Dkos diary while you were at it?
How were you describing the previous eight years of venom and hate out of KOS, MoveOn, etc? Have you ever actually read the seething, poisonous, hate-filled stuff that has been festering in places like that, or on the (late) Air America?
And when you can point to all the talk of armed secession from Kos, MoveOn, Air America etc that started right after Bush's election, you'll have a great point.
Until then, you'll be the biggest fucking idiot on the planet bleating a false equivilancy out of your ass.
Since when does "dead to me" count as a threat of violence? It's cutting off ties & support, not threatening violence - but of course you knew that already.
The wingnuts don't have a counter-example here, they have a lame, transparent tactic.
DailyKos didn't, the author of the diary did after the shooting. And the diary was about the politician being "dead to me" - a common expression without any violent intent - after the Congresswoman voted against Pelosi for minority leader.
Mebbe you should try that false equivilancy BS on Redstate.
Not only does he have zero chance of winning, he would be blacked out and ignored by the media even if he won the primary, and if he did win your worst side effect would be liberty for all.
Unless you're a woman wanting an abortion, of course - then you can get fucked. What's your Constitutional basis for that, Ronnie? He votes against non-binding resolutions criticizing atrocities in Sudan because he doesn't think Congress has the power to do that...but if that's the case, what part of the Constitution allows for the regulation of abortion?
Or unless you like sending your kid to school and knowing he wont have some Southern Baptist crap (or some other denomination/religion), because Ron Paul wants to prevent federal courts from hearing 1st Amendment cases.
Bush had a huge, active effort to deal with AIDS in Africa - much more than Clinton or Obama. Did AIDS groups support Bush?
Nevermind the abstinence-only part that you left out (and the accompanying demonization of condoms) that leads to HIGHER rates of infections. Funny how you left that part out...almost like you were a partisan hack, or something.
Just because you are ignorant of history, doesn't mean it's a lie.
, but I seem to recall Democrat control of both houses and the executive branch.
And this has...what to do with the parent's post or historical facts? Mandates were first proposed by Herbert Walker Bush in the plan put out by the Heritage Foundation. Also proposed by Bob Dole in 1996. Also put into place in Massachusetts - you've heard of it - it's called Romneycare.
Because none of that has anything to do with Bin Laddin, who isn't even in Afghanistan anymore. That's what Obama talked about during the campaign, but as I remind the Obama fanboys, that was a targeted operation to finish off Al Queda. Now even Obama's CIA admits there's less than 400 Al Queda guys in Afghanistan/Pakistan combined.
No, what we have going on is a wide-ranging Surge to prop up a corrupt leader who stole the last election, and threatens to join the Taliban if we don't kiss his ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that it was, of course. Iraqis are allowed to have AK-47's, and the attack happened on an open street, so you don't even have the excuse of them approaching a military base. Then there's the van driver that tries to stop and deliver aid, and the soldiers chortling that they just ran over a body in an armored vehicle.
But your authoritarian apologia is noted.
Yes, standards. We operate under far different ones today, which make Israel the Biff Tannen of the Middle East. Romans invading Carthage and salting their fields might have been cool 150 BC, not so much now.
As they should have. The partition plan gave less than 40% of the population (the vast majority of whom were immigrants) almost 60% of the land. Funny how you left that part out.
Also funny how you left out who started the 1967 war and for what reasons. Hint: it was Israel. And their stated reason was a blockade. Which means that according to Israeli logic, military attacks in response to the blockade of Gaza are perfectly justified.
The Japanese and their home gigabit connections put the lie to that bit of corporate propaganda. This isn't about "bandwidth hogs" and never has been. It's about executive greed and wanting to take all revenue as profit rather than upgrade their networks.
Making text harder to read makes for more eyestrain and headaches.
As the facts have come out, we have learned that the shooter favored Democrats over Republicans in American politics.
What's come out is that he's crazy. But this is ignoring the central point (again): this isn't about one incident, it's about a clear record of violent rhetoric not just from blogging teabaggers, but prominent Republican pundits and elected officials. See again the guy on his way to shoot up the Tides Foundation....when just about the only way anyone would have heard about the Tides Foundation was from listening to Glenn Beck.
And actually, in regard to your quote, I can think of a solid "leftist equivalent" for each of those, but I don't think I'll waste my time doing so.
Because you can't. Michelle Malkin already tried, and accumulated a nice list of nasty things said by...bloggers, but did manage to list several arrests as well. Most of which consist of yelling obscenities or throwing pies at Ann Coulter.
So, to recap: on the left you have arrests for drive by yellings from random shmoes, and on the right you have dozens of shootings over the same time period, and the now speaker of the House commenting on a Democrat voting for the HIR bill that "the Catholics will run him out of town. He may be a dead man. He can't go home to the West Side of Cincinnati." There is no equivalency here of any kind, and that's just a fact you'll have to deal with. What's funny here is that the right wing is so stuck in it's rut of intellectual dishonesty that it's talking about this bullshit about "knife to a gunfight" and "dead to me" to bother listing a real example of an unacceptable call to violence from a Democrat:
Or, you could watch the teabaggers own video and let your lying eyes decide. But that would you and the prosecutor removing your heads from their current warm, comfortable location.
Because if a candidate is perceived as a threat to the establishment, they will be thrown under the bus. It happened to Howard Dean in 2004, and John Edwards in 2008. Makes you wonder what Obama said behind closed doors so the same didn't happen to him.
Oh ok, I guess the charges filed by the county prosecutor are based purely on an urban myth.
And Virginia's AG want's to investigate climate scientists. WYFP? Do charges equal guilt on your planet?
Yawn.
Just because your point sucks, doesn't mean that I didn't understand it just fine.
I am aware that Obama didn't mean it literally, and am claiming that Palin et alia didn't either.
No, seriously, feel free to give up absurd false equivalencies at any time. "Knife to a gunfight" is an old expression for being prepared - it's not a call for violence any more than is "dead to me", which anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex knows means to shun someone.
So, where, exactly, has it been a long time political analogy to put up a map of your opponents with crosshairs scattered over it? Fortunately, for those who continue to insist on being disingenuous, Palin doubled down by saying "don't retreat, RELOAD". It's not the same level as "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest", but you have to be willfully obtuse to pretend there isn't a great deal of violent rhetoric coming from the right wing, and a total sophist to pretend that "both sides do it".
Maybe you should see a doctor about that. When a crowd slowly turns into a riot when there's ten cops for every protester, it means the cops want it to turn into a riot. Deal with it.
Do you also think that Schindler's List was encouraging genocide? Just asking, since talking about something is the same as encouraging it on your planet.
Bagram was handed over to the Afghans in Jan 2010
Maybe if you're one of those Obama fans that counts announced intentions as accomplished accomplishments. That was signing an agreement to hand over control of the prison, not an actual handover of control. Much like Obama's promise to close Gitmo and starting to withdraw from Afghanistan this year, don't hold your breath on this one.
Detainees are now being held in the Parwan facility which is being described as much more humane, where the prisoners are assigned counsel and can challenge their incarceration
Yes, "described". When an American citizen is being subjected to psycological torture on American soil, I don't know why anyone would put much stock in how a foreign gulag is "described".
I am not a constitutional lawyer
Who needs a law degree when basic remedial reading is more than sufficient? The 5th Amendment is perfectly clear:
Verizon is consistently rated tops in coverage, network quality, and customer service by Consumer Reports and other sources.
Saying Verizon is the best American cell phone company is like talking about the best kick in the balls that you've ever had. It might have had a more pleasant outcome than the others you may have received - but it's still a fucking kick to the balls.
That entire line of thinking was started by a few very right-wing pundits who are trying to score political points.
And put in practice by the Bush Administration.
Additionally, even though Obama is getting stymied on closing Guantanamo, AFAIK prisoners are no longer being sent there.
Now they're going to gulag #2: Bagram Prison. Same difference.
On a positive note, the NY Times reports that Obama is getting high marks from constitutional law groups for not using signing statements to override Congress's authority even though he disagrees with the Guantanamo measures present in the recently passed Defense Authorization bill. It would seem our system of checks and balances has been restored.
How is signing off on extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens restoring checks and balances?
Annnnd? Was said CBS show promoting violence?
Look, you have to look forty fucking years ago to find a counter-example.
Look at thousands of cops being unable to defend a squad car from 200 protesters. A squad car left alone on a street corner for hours....almost like they were hoping it would be vandalized so they could whine about violent protesters...huh, interesting.
FTFY. Pajamas media, seriously? Okay, if we can start citing stuff from Korean Central Television. Feel free to stop pretending there's any equivalency here whatsoever.
You mean laughable urban legends promoted by Fox News? What about them?
As opposed to the direct incitement to violence, the store-smashing peace rallies, and the effigy burnings when Bush was in office? The "Bushitler" scream fests, the "revolution" talk, etc? No blathering from crazy lefties about The Man, administration criminals that should be shot, and the rest?
You mean the BS you're pulling out of your ass? We've seen it before. When Bush got re-elected, you guys laughed it up at the liberal celebrities that didn't move to Canada. Obama gets elected, and Republican governors start openly talking of secession.
Nice try with the false equivilancy, but it's not gonna fly.
Uh hub. And where's your actual example of actual calls for actual violence? All you've got here is yet another lame false equivilancy. Why not bring up the "dead to me" Dkos diary while you were at it?
And when you can point to all the talk of armed secession from Kos, MoveOn, Air America etc that started right after Bush's election, you'll have a great point.
Until then, you'll be the biggest fucking idiot on the planet bleating a false equivilancy out of your ass.
Goes both ways.
In wingnut fantasy land, maybe.
This was actually hosted on DailyKos (before they airbrushed it). http://twitpic.com/3o7s5c
Since when does "dead to me" count as a threat of violence? It's cutting off ties & support, not threatening violence - but of course you knew that already.
The wingnuts don't have a counter-example here, they have a lame, transparent tactic.
DailyKos didn't, the author of the diary did after the shooting. And the diary was about the politician being "dead to me" - a common expression without any violent intent - after the Congresswoman voted against Pelosi for minority leader.
Mebbe you should try that false equivilancy BS on Redstate.
Unless you're a woman wanting an abortion, of course - then you can get fucked. What's your Constitutional basis for that, Ronnie? He votes against non-binding resolutions criticizing atrocities in Sudan because he doesn't think Congress has the power to do that...but if that's the case, what part of the Constitution allows for the regulation of abortion?
Or unless you like sending your kid to school and knowing he wont have some Southern Baptist crap (or some other denomination/religion), because Ron Paul wants to prevent federal courts from hearing 1st Amendment cases.
If you DON'T like freedom, vote Ron Paul.
Nevermind the abstinence-only part that you left out (and the accompanying demonization of condoms) that leads to HIGHER rates of infections. Funny how you left that part out...almost like you were a partisan hack, or something.
Just because you are ignorant of history, doesn't mean it's a lie.
And this has...what to do with the parent's post or historical facts? Mandates were first proposed by Herbert Walker Bush in the plan put out by the Heritage Foundation. Also proposed by Bob Dole in 1996. Also put into place in Massachusetts - you've heard of it - it's called Romneycare.
Because none of that has anything to do with Bin Laddin, who isn't even in Afghanistan anymore. That's what Obama talked about during the campaign, but as I remind the Obama fanboys, that was a targeted operation to finish off Al Queda. Now even Obama's CIA admits there's less than 400 Al Queda guys in Afghanistan/Pakistan combined.
No, what we have going on is a wide-ranging Surge to prop up a corrupt leader who stole the last election, and threatens to join the Taliban if we don't kiss his ass.