Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

OTP - Jan 2013: Jewish Journal:E1: An error in baseball and Mideast politics

Tripon Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:48 PM | 2805 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: ot, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 11 of 29 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >  Last ›
   1001. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:39 PM (#4345261)
Killing 100 Palestinians for every Israeli that dies is evidence of restraint?

They have nukes and haven't used them
   1002. Tripon Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4345269)
(CNN) – Republican U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia said controversial comments he made on rape "misconstrued" his own position on the topic, according to a statement released by his office Friday.

Appearing Thursday at a local Chamber of Commerce meeting in Smyrna, Ga., Gingrey took questions on abortion rights and a controversial Georgia law that bans abortions for women more than 20 weeks pregnant.

As the comments began spreading Friday morning, the congressman's office released this statement: "At a breakfast yesterday morning, I was asked why Democrats made abortion a central theme of the presidential campaign. I do not defend, nor do I stand by, the remarks made by Rep. Akin and Mr. Mourdock. In my attempt to provide context as to what I presumed they meant, my position was misconstrued."
   1003. CrosbyBird Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:05 PM (#4345276)
Killing 100 Palestinians for every Israeli that dies is evidence of restraint?

You make it sound like there's a tally board in some back room. "One of us died last Thursday, and we've killed 56 Palestinians since then, so 44 more and we're even."

Historically, most nations dealing with an internal presence as significant and as openly hostile as Israel have engaged in far more brutal behavior. What is your real-world example of a nation with comparable external and internal threats that is the moral standard you hold Israel accountable to?

I'm not saying they're perfect, but on a relative scale, they are remarkably decent.
   1004. The Good Face Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:07 PM (#4345280)
Killing 100 Palestinians for every Israeli that dies is evidence of restraint?

They have nukes and haven't used them


If Mexican nationalists periodically launched rocket/mortar attacks across the border, killing American citizens in their suburbs, and the Mexican government couldn't/wouldn't put a stop to it, Americans would be screaming for blood and they'd get it.

Israel has demonstrated a fair amount of restraint considering the situation and the power disparity. Could they demonstrate more? Sure. But it's probably unreasonable to expect it; I doubt other countries in that position would do any better, and most would probably do worse.
   1005. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:08 PM (#4345281)
They have nukes and haven't used them
That can't possibly an argument.
   1006. CrosbyBird Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:09 PM (#4345282)
They have nukes and haven't used them

Nuremberg-equivalent laws. Internment. Expulsion. Execution.

Israel isn't simply dealing with a domestic problem; they are in an active state of war with factions of Palestinians. Even within the scope of this war, there are strong checks on abuse of power.
   1007. BDC Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:25 PM (#4345302)
my position was misconstrued


And, also obligatory
   1008. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:31 PM (#4345308)
Obama Give Hezbollah 200 Armoured Carriers


Well there is always this point of view. The comments section is always the best part.
   1009. Lassus Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:35 PM (#4345314)
"In my attempt to provide context as to what I presumed they meant, my position was misconstrued."

That sentence deserves some kind of award. Maybe Joe Kehoskie can present it.
   1010. Tripon Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:49 PM (#4345325)

That sentence deserves some kind of award. Maybe Joe Kehoskie can present it.


It begs the question what is Ginrey's actual position is.
   1011. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:53 PM (#4345328)
If Mexican nationalists periodically launched rocket/mortar attacks across the border, killing American citizens in their suburbs, and the Mexican government couldn't/wouldn't put a stop to it, Americans would be screaming for blood and they'd get it.
Well, no rockets, but they are launching weed. Also, sorry for being dense, but in your analogy who is the Mexican government?
   1012. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:54 PM (#4345329)
If Mexican nationalists periodically launched rocket/mortar attacks across the border, killing American citizens in their suburbs, and the Mexican government couldn't/wouldn't put a stop to it, Americans would be screaming for blood and they'd get it.


This did happen you know... and we sent Pershing on the "punitive expedition."

It would make a good analogy if, in addition to sending Pershing down there:

1: A bunch of religiously motivated Americans moved into Mexico and set up "settlements"

2: The US Army stayed in Mexico to guard the settlements and guarantee access to/from such settlements and the United States, and in so doing exercised control over Mexico's economic and transportation activities- within Mexico

3: The settlers get to vote in US elections, Mexican's do not, do not have a government for several decades, but are rather are governed from Washington, later a toothless "authority" is established whereby Mexicans can vote for their "leaders," but the authority's purse strings are controlled by Washington, and Washington continues to maintain control over imports/exports into/out of Mexico.

4: Sporadic Mexican violence continues, so we build a wall, but the wall is not on the US/Mexican border, rather it goes through Mexcico, ensuring that the settlements remain connected to the US and also making sure that certain areas of economic interest remain on the US side, further the wall is established with no regard for any property rights/easements/access to resources by the Mexicans.


But, unlike Israel after 1967, we didn't attempt to occupy, settle in and control Mexico in perpetuity.
   1013. Tripon Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:01 PM (#4345333)
Yeah, we just decided to take more than half of their land after the American-Mexican war.
   1014. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:01 PM (#4345334)
What is your real-world example of a nation with comparable external and internal threats that is the moral standard you hold Israel accountable to?


I don't think that would be a productive line of discussion; I've already said I don't think Israel faces a significant external threat, and as for internal threat, this site says 1200 Israelis over the last 12 years, which is fewer murders than most large U.S. cities, but then that's probably not a good parallel either. [That site suggests the casualty ratio has been 10:1, not 100:1, so I retract that portion of my last post] Any list I provide would result in endless quibbling over degree of threat and degree of restraint.

So I'll just say that Israel kills more civilians than the Palestinians do, that their actions are moreover counterproductive, in that the result is more dead Israelis than would be the case otherwise, not to mention the cost in terms of civil liberties within Israel. I don't think the thesis that the Israelis have been models of restraint holds up under even casual scrutiny, and the case rests on an assumption akin to the ticking time bomb rationale for torture -- that in a case of clear and present danger, all norms of international law can and should be discarded. I don't think that's true even if I thought Israel were in such a situation. That's all I have to say.
   1015. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4345336)

Ironically, Israel is one example of a significantly outnumbered and outgunned minority successfully defending themselves with guns and asserting their independence.
   1016. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4345338)
That can't possibly an argument.


No it's not an argument, it's snark.


You want to relate it to a serious argument?

Other countries in other times have "dealt" with stubborn recalcitrant minorities by mass expulsion/genocide.

After WWII Czechoslovakia expelled virtually all ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia, and they didn't do it too gently either- Israel did not do that* (sure every now and then you have a Meir Kahane type who really does want to expell all Arabs, but outside of certain neighborhoods in Brooklyn they're a fringe, Kahane himself was a pariah in Israel) ... historically conquerors have been ruthless towards occupied peoples if they continued to resist after being conquered- the worst weapons they possessed- would be used- ok Nukes may be hyperbole- what about cluster ammunitions on civilians- Israel has been accused of that- but it seems that those claims are untrue. I Iraq, Sadaam's government sued mustard gas on civilians (Kurds).

You want a comparison to Palestine/Israel?
how about Tibet/China?

The vast majority of Chinese view Tibet as an integral part of China, now and historically, Tibetans who want an independent Tibet/end to Chinese rule are seen as separatists (which to the Chinese is a dirty word) and/or being anti-Chinese and who should be expelled (where i ask you where???).
People in this country have lot of sympathy for Tibet- in fact I'd bet money that of the Tibetans behaved towards China the way the Pales behave towards Israel that many of the very same people who think the Pales are scum, would be cheering the Tibetans on. (of course most Tibetans are quite well aware that an ongoing terrorist campaign against China would be suicidal, the PRC would not show 1/10th of Israel's restraint.


*They didn't after 1967, during the Intifadas etc., whether they did it or not in 1947/48... I'm not getting into now
   1017. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:12 PM (#4345340)

MONTPELIER, Ohio - The Montpelier Exempted Village Schools Board of Education has approved the carrying of handguns by its custodial staff.

The 5-0 vote of the board Wednesday night to allow handgun training for four custodians to be able to tote weapons at the K-12 campus at the Williams County school came after last month's deadly shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

School officials say that having armed personnel - believed to be the first for any school system in Ohio - is designed to thwart incidents of violence and prevent what happened in Newtown, Conn., from occurring here.

"Sitting back and doing nothing and hoping it doesn't happen to you is just not good policy anymore. There is a need for schools to beef up their security measures," Supertendent Jamie Grime told The Blade today. "Having guns in the hands of the right people are not a hindrance. They are a means to protect."


I have to say, this seems much more effective than this previous attempt at arming the custodial staff!
   1018. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:42 PM (#4345352)
When Hezbollah overturned the Lebanese government and replaced it with a coalition dominated by the Shiite terrorist group, backed by Iran


They won an ELECTION, but yes even so I'd be quite pissed if we gave weapons to Hezbollah.

But the Lebanese Army is not Hezbollah, and more to the point, does not appear to be controlled by Hezbollah, its equipment is already (Pre-Obama) some 85% US made. It's head, Jean Kahwaji, is a Christian, the ranks are multi-denominational (as is Lebanon) but VERY light on Shiites (Hezbollah's military wing is essentially a Shiite militia)-
arming the Army is in fact an effort to try to build up/strengthen a counter to Hezbollah.
   1019. CrosbyBird Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:43 PM (#4345354)
So I'll just say that Israel kills more civilians than the Palestinians do, that their actions are moreover counterproductive, in that the result is more dead Israelis than would be the case otherwise, not to mention the cost in terms of civil liberties within Israel.

Since attacks on Israel are launched from sites that are densely populated with Palestinian civilians, I don't see how any retaliatory strategy wouldn't result a gross discrepancy in casualties. It's also a lot harder to clearly classify what a Palestinian "civilian" is; Palestine, unlike Israel, isn't a country with a military than wears uniforms. Also, Israel is fighting a defensive war, and that also tends to shift the balance of casualties toward the defender.

I don't think the thesis that the Israelis have been models of restraint holds up under even casual scrutiny, and the case rests on an assumption akin to the ticking time bomb rationale for torture -- that in a case of clear and present danger, all norms of international law can and should be discarded. I don't think that's true even if I thought Israel were in such a situation. That's all I have to say.

Only models of restraint relative to every other nation under similar duress in the history of the world. Look at the examples in 1016. Perhaps you want to add the Kurds to the ledger.

Not relative to some fantasyland image of turning the other cheek while people try to destroy you.

People in this country have lot of sympathy for Tibet- in fact I'd bet money that of the Tibetans behaved towards China the way the Pales behave towards Israel that many of the very same people who think the Pales are scum, would be cheering the Tibetans on. (of course most Tibetans are quite well aware that an ongoing terrorist campaign against China would be suicidal, the PRC would not show 1/10th of Israel's restraint.

I'm going to have call bullshit on this.

I would not cheer for Tibetan suicide bombers and use of civilians as shields, and I challenge you to find one person in this thread that criticizes the Palestinians for this behavior but would support it for Tibetans. Even though, as you note, China is far less restrained in its response to dissent than Israel.
   1020. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:43 PM (#4345355)
Yeah, we just decided to take more than half of their land after the American-Mexican war.


Yes but that wasn't preceded by cross border attacks on Americans on American soil, that the Mexican Government was unwilling/unable to prevent, Pershing's expedition was.
   1021. DA Baracus Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:45 PM (#4345356)
The CEO of a Tennessee company that specializes weapons and tactical training is threatening to “start killing people” if President Barack Obama moves forward with gun control measures.


The state of Tennessee has suspended his handgun permit.
   1022. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:45 PM (#4345357)
Palestine, unlike Israel, isn't a country with a military than wears uniforms.


Actually it is, so is Hamas/Gaza... the big problem isn't the Pales wearing uniforms of course, it's the militants who do not...
   1023. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:52 PM (#4345360)
I'm going to have call ######## on this.

I would not cheer for Tibetan suicide bombers and use of civilians as shields, and I challenge you to find one person in this thread that criticizes the Palestinians for this behavior but would support it for Tibetans.


Bullshit

1: I did not refer or even intend to refer to anyone in this thread
2: Are you seriously trying to claim that the neo-cons and others who constantly denigrate the Pales/cheer on Israel are not some of the same individuals who would be cheering on a Tibetan insurgency? If you believe that you seriously need to get off this site and look around at others.

Go look at almost any conservative site (not even a wingnut site, but a normal site) look up what random commentators say about Israel- look for supporters/anti-Palestinian sentiments - then look to see if the same guy has commented on China/Tibet.

Hell, my effing neighboring Congressman thinks the Pales are animals, but was cheering on the effing IRA fro doing the same damn things- and you claim that no one does that?
   1024. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:53 PM (#4345361)
I don't think that would be a productive line of discussion; I've already said I don't think Israel faces a significant external threat, and as for internal threat, this site says 1200 Israelis over the last 12 years, which is fewer murders than most large U.S. cities, but then that's probably not a good parallel either.

To look at it in a different (and still imperfect way), ~750 Israeli civilians have been killed in the last 12 years in a country with ~7.5 million people. In the U.S. that would be the equivalent of 30,000 civilians killed in terror attacks, or roughly ten September 11 attacks. We saw how the U.S. reacted to one 9/11. Whether or not Israel faces an existential threat, individual Israelis certainly face an existential threat in a way that most of their critics in the West have never had to deal with. It doesn't excuse everything they do (far from it) but it makes their actions and opinions more understandable.
   1025. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 08:00 PM (#4345365)
2: Are you seriously trying to claim that the neo-cons and others who constantly denigrate the Pales/cheer on Israel are not some of the same individuals who would be cheering on a Tibetan insurgency? If you believe that you seriously need to get off this site and look around at others.

There's a difference between launching an insurgency and blowing up pizza parlors and shooting up school buses. I support self determination; I don't support murder.
   1026. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 08:04 PM (#4345367)
of course most Tibetans are quite well aware that an ongoing terrorist campaign against China would be suicidal, the PRC would not show 1/10th of Israel's restraint.


I think that has less to do with a fear of Chinese retaliation, and more to do with the fact that the Dalai Lama, the symbolic face of Tibetan resistance, is an outspoken advocate of non-violence. People who are afraid to die for their cause don't protest by self-immolating.
   1027. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2013 at 08:05 PM (#4345368)
Whether or not Israel faces an existential threat, individual Israelis certainly face an existential threat in a way that most of their critics in the West have never had to deal with. It doesn't excuse everything they do (far from it) but it makes their actions more understandable.


you/we also seem to forget the other side of the coin- how many pales have died do to Israeli attacks?

How many people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen have died in US drone attacks- sure many of those were Islamist militants* - but many civilians were killed as well- if they didn't actively dislike us before, they do now.



*I'm not shedding any tears over the death of some random Al Qaeda operative, and I despise militant Islam, and Islamic theology/ideology, I believe that everyone ought to have freedom of religion, I also believe the world would be better off if Islam went the way the ancient Greco-Roman religions did (assuming it doesn't get replaced by a worse one), if you want me to say something good about Islam- it's better than whatever the Aztecs practiced. However, there's over a billion Muslims- and there are not a billion or close to to it, terroristic suicide bombers- we can and should live and let live with the vast majority- but us constantly picking at it ain't helping- we get attacked we should hit back, AND LEAVE, not stay around for decades randomly blowing people up by remote control whenever someone says something nasty about us on twitter- the main reason we are a target is because WE ARE THERE
   1028. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 11, 2013 at 08:10 PM (#4345369)
I think that has less to do with a fear of Chinese retaliation, and more to do with the fact that the Dalai Lama, the symbolic face of Tibetan resistance, is an outspoken advocate of non-violence. People who are afraid to die for their cause don't protest by self-immolating.


1: The Dalai Lama is quite well aware that China's reaction to a Pale style Intifada just might be genocide- which has an impact on his advocacy of non-violence- there are many Tibetans who do want to resort to violence, the Dalai Lama is a key factor reigning them in (a fact that seems completely lost on Beijing I might add).

Also Tibetan style self immolation isn't something that is going to risk bringing the full wrath of armed Chinese might on your countryman's heads- there is nothing for China to "retaliate" against- you didn't do anything physically to them you just made them look bad) moreover, perhaps the Pales should try it- it WORKED recently in an Arab country, and what is Israel going to do? Retaliate?
   1029. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 08:29 PM (#4345375)
The Dalai Lama is quite well aware that China's reaction to a Pale style Intifada just might be genocide- which has an impact on his advocacy of non-violence...


In the absence of any dispute with China, I'm fairly confident that the Dalai Lama would still be an advocate of non-violence, as it is a matter of religious principle for him.
   1030. The Good Face Posted: January 11, 2013 at 08:39 PM (#4345381)
It would make a good analogy if, in addition to sending Pershing down there:

1: A bunch of religiously motivated Americans moved into Mexico and set up "settlements"

2: The US Army stayed in Mexico to guard the settlements and guarantee access to/from such settlements and the United States, and in so doing exercised control over Mexico's economic and transportation activities- within Mexico

3: The settlers get to vote in US elections, Mexican's do not, do not have a government for several decades, but are rather are governed from Washington, later a toothless "authority" is established whereby Mexicans can vote for their "leaders," but the authority's purse strings are controlled by Washington, and Washington continues to maintain control over imports/exports into/out of Mexico.

4: Sporadic Mexican violence continues, so we build a wall, but the wall is not on the US/Mexican border, rather it goes through Mexcico, ensuring that the settlements remain connected to the US and also making sure that certain areas of economic interest remain on the US side, further the wall is established with no regard for any property rights/easements/access to resources by the Mexicans.


But, unlike Israel after 1967, we didn't attempt to occupy, settle in and control Mexico in perpetuity.


That would all go towards justification of our hypothetical Mexican nationalists behavior, but you're missing the point. Justified or not, when the rockets start falling on a civilian population whose military has the capacity to easily kick the absolute #### out of the people firing those rockets, there will be demands for such a ####-kicking to take place, and take place it will. Do you really think Americans (or any other nation) would behave differently in such a situation?
   1031. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 11, 2013 at 09:11 PM (#4345385)
That sentence deserves some kind of award. Maybe Joe Kehoskie can present it.

Stop slandering me and stop Google-bombing my name, or else I'm going to tell Jim!


(Jokes aside, what's with this recent effort here to paint me as someone who's constantly backtracking and/or claiming to have been misquoted or misconstrued? I literally can't recall the last time I did either of those things here.)
   1032. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 11, 2013 at 09:41 PM (#4345394)
I agree with 921, but would suggest that while the guns are useful in this case (and others I admit) they don't really solve the problem they merely address a symptom. The problem was solved (in so much as it has been solved) through non-violence. And I would suggest that violence would never have solved the problem (unless genocide is a solution, which I would suggest it is not).

I'm fascinated by the liberal mind. For the past year, we've been told that it's a moral imperative to provide contraceptives to 30-year-old college students, but now we have a bunch of liberals who are basically saying that slaves and then blacks under Jim Crow should have just kept waiting in perpetuity for things to get better rather than engage in violence. If there was any doubt that the lefties here really don't give a crap about rights or liberty, this discussion has removed it.

***
You act as if oppressed people only have two options, (1) "tolerate" it without resistance, or (2) violently resist. There is a third option, which is non-violent resistance or civil disobedience. I think it is more effective than armed resistance in many circumstances, although it is not without its costs, and it requires significant organization and discipline. Blacks under Jim Crow is a great example of where non-violent resistance worked.

How long should oppressed people wait for that third option to work? Slavery existed for hundreds of years, and a slave who engaged in "civil disobedience" was likely to be severely beaten or killed. Blacks lived peacefully under Jim Crow for generations, but were still often the targets of race-based violence.

Twenty people were killed in Newtown and now half the political class is clamoring for more gun control. How many slave owners — or families of slave owners — would have needed to be killed before the whole slavery issue was being rethought?
   1033. zenbitz Posted: January 11, 2013 at 10:16 PM (#4345400)
Embryology?
   1034. GregD Posted: January 11, 2013 at 10:20 PM (#4345402)
Twenty people were killed in Newtown and now half the political class is clamoring for more gun control. How many slave owners — or families of slave owners — would have needed to be killed before the whole slavery issue was being rethought?
It is an arguable point but there's a good argument that each of the major revolt scares in the post-revolutionary seaboard states--Prosser, Vesey, and Turner--led to an intensification of support for slavery among white Southerners, shut down critiques of slavery from within the society, and led to a crackdown and expulsion of free people of color and an increase of the surveillance system of patrols. If you want to call John Brown's raid a slave rebellion, it had precisely the same effect on white Southern society. (The Louisiana revolt likely fits this pattern but is so embedded in other processes that it isn't reasonable to compare it.)

The one wild card is that some Virginians raised gradual emancipation in the legislature after Nat Turner; that was defeated, and the progress of gradual emancipation down the coast was halted; no Southern state seriously considered the idea again.

   1035. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 11, 2013 at 10:32 PM (#4345405)
Twenty people were killed in Newtown and now half the political class is clamoring for more gun control. How many slave owners — or families of slave owners — would have needed to be killed before the whole slavery issue was being rethought?

Probably not all that many, but I doubt if the outcome of the rethinking would have made the slaves very happy.

Joe, you have this absolutely amazing capacity to combine utter ignorance of history with the strangest hypotheticals, to a point where I really do suspect you're getting your talking points from some NRA comic book.

Emancipation through armed resistance among a group of people who were separated from each other in most cases by many miles of uneven dirt roads, at a time when transportation for them would have consisted mostly of mules, and with the ruling class controlling 99% of the firearms---that has got to be the weirdest scenario this side of 21st century secession.

But it's also one of the reasons that we love you---when we read your more imaginative posts, it spares us from having to click on all of Yankee Redneck's clown links in order to keep up with the outer limits of the political fringes.
   1036. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 11, 2013 at 10:33 PM (#4345406)
How long should oppressed people wait for that third option to work? Slavery existed for hundreds of years, and a slave who engaged in "civil disobedience" was likely to be severely beaten or killed.
More precisely, it was simply impossible for them as they were not even legally part of civil society. However, the efforts of white and free abolitionists contributed to the change in white attitudes that eventually allowed emancipation.
Blacks lived peacefully under Jim Crow for generations, but were still often the targets of race-based violence.
There's a distinction between living peacefully and resisting non-violently, and as to how long they should wait for it to work, the time period is a decade, not a century. The post you're quoting clarifies both these points and it's unclear why your response ignores them.

Edit: I will note that the position of arguing that the most successful actual, real-life, it happened example of non-violent civil disobedience in U.S. history is actually a grand failure that would be improved with hypothetical armed resistance, not to mention proof that lefties "really don't give a crap about rights or liberty", is pretty spectacular as OTP argument-for-argument's-sake positions go. Kudos.
   1037. Morty Causa Posted: January 11, 2013 at 10:43 PM (#4345407)
For the past year, we've been told that it's a moral imperative to provide contraceptives to 30-year-old college students, but now we have a bunch of liberals who are basically saying that slaves and then blacks under Jim Crow should have just kept waiting in perpetuity for things to get better rather than engage in violence. If there was any doubt that the lefties here really don't give a crap about rights or liberty, this discussion has removed it.


Intellectually speaking, Kehoskie, you're an odious little guttersnipe, and the quote here encapsulates it. This is both deeply dishonest and deeply ignorant. You only know how to discuss something in demagogic and accusatory terms. You claim to never insult people or to distort their positions, but you do this all the time, just as you did in this quote. All ...the...time. Why anyone continues to take you seriously is beyond me, except maybe it's fun to play whac-A-Mole, although one would think that would get old.

I challenge you to substantiate the loathsome libels in that quote by quoting and citing with a link the specific language supporting those accusations. I dare you.
   1038. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 10:45 PM (#4345409)
Joe, you have this absolutely amazing capacity to combine utter ignorance of history with the strangest hypotheticals, to a point where I really do suspect you're getting your talking points from some NRA comic book.


Now that you mention it, has anyone ever seen Joe and Eddie Eagle in the same place at once?

But it's also one of the reasons that we love you---when we read your more imaginative posts, it spares us from having to click on all of Yankee Redneck's clown links in order to keep up with the outer limits of the political fringes.


What outer limits? I only link to the most respected and mainstream voices in the Dittosphere.
   1039. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 10:55 PM (#4345410)
I'm fascinated by the liberal mind. For the past year, we've been told that it's a moral imperative to provide contraceptives to 30-year-old college students, but now we have a bunch of liberals who are basically saying that slaves and then blacks under Jim Crow should have just kept waiting in perpetuity for things to get better rather than engage in violence. If there was any doubt that the lefties here really don't give a crap about rights or liberty, this discussion has removed it.

First off - the contraceptive issue is a complete non-sequitur that has no relevance to this discussion.

Second - do you even read the posts you're responding to?

...liberals who are basically saying that slaves and then blacks under Jim Crow should have just kept waiting in perpetuity for things to get better rather than engage in violence.

No, we are not saying that. One great thing about the civil rights movement is that it's not a hypothetical. We know what actually happened. Organized, non-violent resistance of the kind that blacks (and many whites) engaged in beginning around 1955 was successful in ending Jim Crow. It still took years and arguably decades, some people still lost their freedom or their lives, but ultimately the movement was successful. So we are saying that the strategy that actually worked was a better strategy than the ones that didn't work.

We are not saying that blacks "should have just kept waiting in perpetuity." "Civil disobedience", as I said, is different from "waiting in perpetuity", which didn't work from 1865-1955 and was unlikely to have done so if given more time. "Should have" has little to do with it, but to be clear, I think everyone here agrees that blacks were morally justified in resisting their oppressors.

However, regardless of whether resistance was justified, blacks who engaged in armed or violent resistance generally failed and suffered terrible consequences. They may have been morally justified but from a practical standpoint, that didn't make them any less dead.

Slavery existed for hundreds of years, and a slave who engaged in "civil disobedience" was likely to be severely beaten or killed.

As was a slave who engaged in violent resistance. (I will also note that I said earlier that civil disobedience has to be organized and disciplined to be effective. I don't think anyone here would advise "a slave" to engage in civil disobedience alone.)

Twenty people were killed in Newtown and now half the political class is clamoring for more gun control. How many slave owners — or families of slave owners — would have needed to be killed before the whole slavery issue was being rethought?

This reflects a mindblowing lack of knowledge of both history and current events. First, Newtown wasn't the first mass shooting in U.S. history; it wasn't even the first in 2012. In answer to your question, it's complicated, but Nat Turner's slave rebellion killed ~55 people in 1831, and rather than inspire slaveowners to free their slaves en masse as you seem to think it would have, it inspired Southerners to clamp down on their slaves even more. Similarly, John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry had a similar effect within the South, although it did help to precipitate secession and the Civil War and so indirectly helped lead to the end of slavery, although not the way you are implying it should have.
   1040. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 11, 2013 at 10:57 PM (#4345411)
Joe, you have this absolutely amazing capacity to combine utter ignorance of history with the strangest hypotheticals, to a point where I really do suspect you're getting your talking points from some NRA comic book.

Yes, Andy, I know — You're an independent, open-minded Big Thinker while all I do is parrot talking points sent to me by Rush Limbaugh and the NRA. Blah blah blah.

You need to come up with some new lines, because your current ones are tired (and incorrect).

Emancipation through armed resistance among a group of people who were separated from each other in most cases by many miles of uneven dirt roads, at a time when transportation for them would have consisted mostly of mules, and with the ruling class controlling 99% of the firearms---that has got to be the weirdest scenario this side of 21st century secession.

I never said it would be easy. The point is that it's bizarre for a bunch of liberals to sit around and talk about how Jim Crow was "solved" non-violently, when the reality was quite different. Many blacks were the targets of race-based violence despite blacks generally living peacefully under Jim Crow, and many generations of blacks lived under Jim Crow for every minute of their lives. Slavery was never "solved" for the thousands of blacks who were both born as slaves and died as slaves, and Jim Crow was never "solved" for the blacks who were born under Jim Crow and died under Jim Crow.

It's really comical how you and several others keep unintentionally proving my larger point about gun rights while mocking my position. The entire point of this discussion was that an armed populace is tougher to oppress — and yet, you and others keep pointing out that slaves and Jim Crow-era blacks were often unarmed. Yeah, no kidding. That's the point.
   1041. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 11, 2013 at 11:06 PM (#4345412)
There's a distinction between living peacefully and resisting non-violently, and as to how long they should wait for it to work, the time period is a decade, not a century. The post you're quoting clarifies both these points and it's unclear why your response ignores them.

Yes, a decade after 90 previous years of Jim Crow. That's a hundred years, not 10. And what if civil disobedience didn't work after that decade? How much longer should they have waited?

Edit: I will note that the position of arguing that the most successful actual, real-life, it happened example of non-violent civil disobedience in U.S. history is actually a grand failure that would be improved with hypothetical armed resistance, not to mention proof that lefties "really don't give a crap about rights or liberty", is pretty spectacular as OTP argument-for-argument's-sake positions go. Kudos.

Most successful? Slavery existed for hundreds of years, followed by almost a hundred years of Jim Crow, and now, more than 50 years after Jim Crow, liberals still manage to find racism around every corner. If that's your idea of a highly "successful" outcome, I'd hate to see what failure would have looked like.

"Hey, kids, don't worry! You'll live your life as a slave or a second-class citizen, but things are going to be great for your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren!"
   1042. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 11:13 PM (#4345415)
Yes, a decade after 90 previous years of Jim Crow.

OK Joe, you've succeeded in identifying yourself as an intellectually dishonest troll who does not argue in good faith. My "ignore" list now has two people on it.
   1043. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 11, 2013 at 11:17 PM (#4345416)
First off - the contraceptive issue is a complete non-sequitur that has no relevance to this discussion.

You need to look up "non sequitur." Discussing two different (alleged) rights within a discussion of rights hardly constitutes a "non sequitur."

Second - do you even read the posts you're responding to?

Yes, although I often regret it.

No, we are not saying that. One great thing about the civil rights movement is that it's not a hypothetical. We know what actually happened. Organized, non-violent resistance of the kind that blacks (and many whites) engaged in beginning around 1955 was successful in ending Jim Crow. It still took years and arguably decades, some people still lost their freedom or their lives, but ultimately the movement was successful. So we are saying that the strategy that actually worked was a better strategy than the ones that didn't work.

Now tell me about Cuba, and North Korea, and all sorts of other places around the world where things haven't gone as "quickly" as they did in the U.S.

We are not saying that blacks "should have just kept waiting in perpetuity." "Civil disobedience", as I said, is different from "waiting in perpetuity", which didn't work from 1865-1955 and was unlikely to have done so if given more time. "Should have" has little to do with it, but to be clear, I think everyone here agrees that blacks were morally justified in resisting their oppressors.

How is civil disobedience "different from 'waiting in perpetuity'"? Saying such a thing assumes that civil disobedience always yields the desired outcome, but it takes only one look at a newspaper to know this isn't true.

However, regardless of whether resistance was justified, blacks who engaged in armed or violent resistance generally failed and suffered terrible consequences. They may have been morally justified but from a practical standpoint, that didn't make them any less dead.

Yes, because they were unarmed. One would think lefties would keep this example in mind before demanding the Second Amendment be stricken from the Constitution, but apparently one would be wrong. (Now you'll probably tell me that mentioning the Second Amendment in a discussion that originated with the Second Amendment is a "non sequitur.")
   1044. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 11, 2013 at 11:23 PM (#4345417)
OK Joe, you've succeeded in identifying yourself as an intellectually dishonest troll who does not argue in good faith. My "ignore" list now has two people on it.

If pointing out that Jim Crow lasted 100 years rather than 10 years makes me a troll, then you're a dim bulb with whom I'll be happy to no longer deal.

(By the way, this "10 years" nonsense seems to assume that if only MLK and Rosa Parks had been around in 1865, Jim Crow would have been gone by 1875, which is an absolute fantasy.)
   1045. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 11:47 PM (#4345421)
They shoulda gone all Shaka Zulu on the white man.
   1046. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:04 AM (#4345424)
I am horrified that I can't find a video of EU's Shaka Zulu to link here now.

The Kehoskie Show has become performance art with this newest one. Awesome in the literal sense.
   1047. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:06 AM (#4345426)
However, regardless of whether resistance was justified, blacks who engaged in armed or violent resistance generally failed and suffered terrible consequences. They may have been morally justified but from a practical standpoint, that didn't make them any less dead.


Yes, because they were unarmed.

This whole silly side-discussion began when you suggested that the Freedom Riders should have been armed, which temporarily copped the prize for lunatic suggestions. Now you're suggesting that if only slaves had had guns, they could have shot their way to emancipation.

Of course what you haven't quite addressed is how those slaves might have obtained their guns in the first place, given that not only were they penniless and propertyless, they themselves were a major part of the property.

Yes, I can just imagine a congress of slaveholders sitting around and working up a pilot project to give Gun Stamps to slaves, with Marse Joe defending his proposal on Second Amendment grounds while Marse Ray attacks it as an underhanded attempt to raise his property tax rates. At gunpoint, I guess.

It might not have been quite up to Federalist Papers standards, but it would have been far more entertaining. And yes, you did admit that it wouldn't be easy.
   1048. Jay Z Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:31 AM (#4345432)
Access to a lunch counter is not a basic need.


Food isn't a basic need?

I take it the reason they had the common carrier law was for travel. Maybe you didn't want so and so as your neighbor, but they at least needed to travel to get somewhere else, and for that they needed roads or other transportation, food, a place to sleep. According to your beliefs the minimum accommodations that may be provided for any of these is zero. You may be served at no restaurants, you may shop at no grocery stores, you may buy no land to grow your own food or hunt it. You have 0.00 square miles on which anyone will let you stand or sleep. If the roads are private, you can't move. You can be privatized to death.

If Woolworth's doesn't has to serve them, are they going to have better luck at the Piggly Wiggly? The unspoken assumption is that there's a kitchen door of a restaurant or the black family in town's house, but by your ethic these really don't have to exist. No one is obligated to provide, to prevent the death of the traveler. Then what?

   1049. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:44 AM (#4345439)
Those were real problems in Jim Crow country. If you were traveling you had to map out a strategy like the Normandy Invasion, for you couldn't get food, shelter, gas, restrooms just anywhere. It was a big deal to go from say Beaumont Texas to Miami FL. It was a particular problem if you weren't making a trip you had made before. To appreciate some things, you have to have been there. I didn't realize this in more than a theoretical sense until I spoke with some blacks who had been kids in the '50s and early '60s and they related some of the problems they had in making a trip.It was king of eye-opening.
   1050. CrosbyBird Posted: January 12, 2013 at 01:04 AM (#4345444)
Hell, my effing neighboring Congressman thinks the Pales are animals, but was cheering on the effing IRA fro doing the same damn things- and you claim that no one does that?

I apologize. I thought you were referring to people here.

I'm sure there are people out there that hate Muslims and hate Chinese, and support Israel and Tibet because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
   1051. CrosbyBird Posted: January 12, 2013 at 01:16 AM (#4345447)
Food isn't a basic need?

Food is a basic need. Restaurant service is not.

I take it the reason they had the common carrier law was for travel.

I'm not arguing against the common carrier law. I'm saying that Woolworth's wasn't a common carrier.

No one is obligated to provide, to prevent the death of the traveler. Then what?

The government is obligated to provide. That's the sort of social safety net I'm suggesting.
   1052. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 12, 2013 at 02:00 AM (#4345462)
The Kehoskie Show has become performance art with this newest one. Awesome in the literal sense.


I have to agree. Joe's "logic" is great. I think he should write a book all about the true failures of non-violence and use the US Civil Rights campaign as an example. Then he can go on Fox news and be interviewed by these geniuses.

Really you should click, but here is the money quote.

“But even worse is the way some textbooks are pushing the liberal agenda,” the Fox News host explained, pointing to an algebra worksheet that Scholastic says gives students “insight into the distributive property as it applies to multiplication.”

“Distribute the wealth!” Bolling exclaimed, reading the worksheet. “Distribute the wealth with the lovely rich girl with a big ole bag of money, handing some money out.”


Yes this moron doesn't understand that the distributive property is an actual mathematical thing. No in their little Fox world it is all socialist propaganda. Which is exactly as smart as Joe going on and on about how non-violence never works and was a failure during the Civil Rights era.

I admit I was tempted to ignore him before this (it would be my first), but really this is truly awesome.

Hey Joe can you explain to the audience about Gandhi and Mandela being frauds and really it would have been so much better had they used GUNS! Because GUNS! are awesome and rights giving and everything.
   1053. zenbitz Posted: January 12, 2013 at 02:15 AM (#4345466)
I don't really have a huge problem with suicide bomber attacks distinct from any other type of warfare. War kills people -- often innocent people. And of course the side with the active, functional, well-equipped military is going to claim that the other side should fight on their terms. Of course - like any escalation - if you target children you run the risk of repayment in kind.

You attack your enemy where he is weak. In guerrilla war, you attack the (stronger) enemy's will to fight by increasing the cost of occupation. By any means necessary. Now, one can argue as to whether such attacks actually HELP the Palestinian cause in the long run, but that's a tactical argument, not a moral one. All war is immoral. Does it really matter if you die or are maimed at the hands of a suicide bomber, an IED, a stray bullet, "friendly fire", starvation, nuclear blast, poison gas? All that matters is the extent of your injury and the painlessness of your death.

Israel has shown some restraint, I think that's true. But for strategic reasons. They need to appear to have the moral high ground, because they rely on on American (and possibly British?) aid and support. I don't think the rest of the UN buys it, but they are not (typically) sanctioning them either (although that is sometimes a security council thing).

I agree it would be FAR better for both sides to swallow their pride, end the bloodshed and co-exist peacefully. But since neither side will surrender or agree to to the others' terms - the conflict will continue until someone says uncle, or both sides are too exhausted to continue.
   1054. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 12, 2013 at 02:21 AM (#4345467)
I am sorry I know I shouldn't, and should be in bed but really ...

I never said it would be easy. The point is that it's bizarre for a bunch of liberals to sit around and talk about how Jim Crow was "solved" non-violently, when the reality was quite different. Many blacks were the targets of race-based violence despite blacks generally living peacefully under Jim Crow, and many generations of blacks lived under Jim Crow for every minute of their lives. Slavery was never "solved" for the thousands of blacks who were both born as slaves and died as slaves, and Jim Crow was never "solved" for the blacks who were born under Jim Crow and died under Jim Crow.


"I never said it would be easy" is fabulous. Sure it might (just might mind you) be hard for blacks in the Jim Crow south to use guns to gain their freedom, but Joe is sure it would work. I wonder why they never did.

Then we hear about how non-violence didn't really solve Jim Crow during the civil rights era. An the example of this is violence done to blacks during Jim Crow. Yes the fact that blacks were the victims of violence during Jim Crow (you know before it ended) shows that it was not ended by non-violence in the tangled reaches of Joe's mind.

How horrible and immoral acts against blacks during Jim Crow shows that the strategy of blacks failed even though Jim Crow ended as a direct result of a campaign of non-violence is a complete mystery to me, but I am sure there is a Kehoskie explanation involving the liberal media and skewed polls or something.

Never change Joe it is truly great seeing into your persona. I mean this has to be a bit, kind of like Sam's, and you are playing it masterfully. If I had to guess Joe is really a frustrated liberal janitor somewhere, a smart guy but annoyed at his life and blowing off steam by playing a role here in our little corner of the internet.
   1055. GregD Posted: January 12, 2013 at 02:34 AM (#4345471)
What's interesting is that, laws be damned, many slaves had access to guns and hunted either on their own or in groups with their masters. Even with the confiscation of guns from freedpeople after Reconstruction, lots of black people still had hunting rifles and shotguns. If you look at wills of late 19th century middling black people, there are very frequently guns being passed down. Black people were Southerners! Oppressed and unequal Southerners, no doubt, but still Southerners. You don't have to spend a lot of time outside of the Southern cities to realize that hunting has been a part of black Southern life for a long time.

Access to guns didn't mean automatic victory in regions where they were most often outnumbered and always outgunned (since all the white people had guns too and often newer ones.)

The exceptions--the coastal Carolinas and Georgia, the black cotton belt--where blacks had a big numerical majority, were places where the Klan stayed far far away, and where violence was relatively rare.
   1056. Tripon Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:08 AM (#4345479)
WASHINGTON — With the Newtown, Conn., massacre spurring concern over violent video games, makers of popular games like Call of Duty and Mortal Kombat are rallying Congressional support to try to fend off their biggest regulatory threat in two decades.

The $60 billion industry is facing intense political pressure from an unlikely alliance of critics who say that violent imagery in video games has contributed to a culture of violence. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. met with industry executives on Friday to discuss the concerns, highlighting the issue’s prominence.

No clear link has emerged between the Connecticut rampage and the gunman Adam Lanza’s interest in video games. Even so, the industry’s detractors want to see a federal study on the impact of violent gaming, as well as cigarette-style warning labels and other measures to curb the games’ graphic imagery.


Its going to hilarious and sad if regulation on gun makers gets stymied while Congress passes regulation on the video game industry.

Edit: The main difference is that the Video Game industry has tried to regulate itself, with individual companies taking their own stance, (Nintendo for instance would censor various games for violence or religious reasons), and the establishment of the ESRB. I'm not aware of what the gun manufacturer have done to group and rate their products.
   1057. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:47 AM (#4345487)
This whole silly side-discussion began when you suggested that the Freedom Riders should have been armed, which temporarily copped the prize for lunatic suggestions.

Yes, carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense — crazy stuff!

Now you're suggesting that if only slaves had had guns, they could have shot their way to emancipation.

Well, a lot of them could have, unless slave owners were bulletproof.

Of course what you haven't quite addressed is how those slaves might have obtained their guns in the first place, given that not only were they penniless and propertyless, they themselves were a major part of the property.

I never suggested they could walk into Guns 'R Us and buy whatever they wanted. The discussion was regarding the utility of having guns in the first place.

You've pointed out the obvious about a dozen times — that most slaves and Jim Crow-era blacks were unarmed — but you've also mocked the idea that having guns would have been of any benefit [see #934, #1047], so I really don't know what you're arguing here.
   1058. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:54 AM (#4345489)
I have to agree. Joe's "logic" is great. I think he should write a book all about the true failures of non-violence and use the US Civil Rights campaign as an example.

...

... Which is exactly as smart as Joe going on and on about how non-violence never works and was a failure during the Civil Rights era.

I admit I was tempted to ignore him before this (it would be my first), but really this is truly awesome.

Hey Joe can you explain to the audience about Gandhi and Mandela being frauds and really it would have been so much better had they used GUNS! Because GUNS! are awesome and rights giving and everything. — "Bitter Mouse"

Are you intoxicated? If not, what happened to you? The old "Bitter Mouse" always used to talk about his preferences for civility and honesty, but it appears you've been interning with Sam or something. None of the above is even remotely an accurate representation of anything I've said in this discussion. I never said "non-violence never works," I never said "Gandhi and Mandela were frauds." It's all fiction.

"I never said it would be easy" is fabulous. Sure it might (just might mind you) be hard for blacks in the Jim Crow south to use guns to gain their freedom, but Joe is sure it would work. I wonder why they never did.

Then we hear about how non-violence didn't really solve Jim Crow during the civil rights era. An the example of this is violence done to blacks during Jim Crow. Yes the fact that blacks were the victims of violence during Jim Crow (you know before it ended) shows that it was not ended by non-violence in the tangled reaches of Joe's mind.

How horrible and immoral acts against blacks during Jim Crow shows that the strategy of blacks failed even though Jim Crow ended as a direct result of a campaign of non-violence is a complete mystery to me, but I am sure there is a Kehoskie explanation involving the liberal media and skewed polls or something.

Never change Joe it is truly great seeing into your persona. I mean this has to be a bit, kind of like Sam's, and you are playing it masterfully. If I had to guess Joe is really a frustrated liberal janitor somewhere, a smart guy but annoyed at his life and blowing off steam by playing a role here in our little corner of the internet.

I'd reply to this, but I'm going to wait for the English translation. After the first few words all I could hear was the voice of Charlie Brown's teacher.
   1059. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:01 AM (#4345490)
I don't really have a huge problem with suicide bomber attacks distinct from any other type of warfare. War kills people -- often innocent people. And of course the side with the active, functional, well-equipped military is going to claim that the other side should fight on their terms. Of course - like any escalation - if you target children you run the risk of repayment in kind.

... All war is immoral. Does it really matter if you die or are maimed at the hands of a suicide bomber, an IED, a stray bullet, "friendly fire", starvation, nuclear blast, poison gas? All that matters is the extent of your injury and the painlessness of your death.

Yikes. You "don't really have a huge problem with suicide bomber attacks distinct from any other type of warfare"? "All war is immoral"? Those are some scary comments.
   1060. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:01 AM (#4345491)
Even so, the industry’s detractors want to see a federal study on the impact of violent gaming

I'll save you a few bucks, here's the result of the study: Video games don't make anyone commit violent acts. However, once someone has decided they would enjoy committing a violent act, video game experience will make that person much more effective.

And since we are so brilliant in this country to allow automatic weapons that have no other purpose than mass murder, if the unbalanced white boy committing the act has such a weapon and a full Call of Duty trophy case, well, we are talking about quite an impressive body count.
   1061. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:13 AM (#4345494)
And since we are so brilliant in this country to allow automatic weapons that have no other purpose than mass murder,

Couple errors in the above.
   1062. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:21 AM (#4345496)
And since we are so brilliant in this country to allow automatic weapons that have no other purpose than mass murder

Then surely, considering there are millions and millions of semi-automatic weapons and a very small percentage used for mass murder, the gun manufacturers must be bankrupt because of returns of purchased semi-automatic weapons, as the millions and millions of purchasers that do not commit mass murder would have become disgruntled as a result of shelling out wads of cash for something which had no purpose to them.

I assume, of course, you actually mean semi-automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are significantly harder to get as they are regulated far more tightly.
   1063. steagles Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:23 AM (#4345498)
Are you intoxicated? If not, what happened to you? The old "Bitter Mouse" always used to talk about his preferences for civility and honesty, but it appears you've been interning with Sam or something.
in related news, the season premiere of justified was every bit as good as the first 3 seasons. quote of the show:

"you ever hear of the saying 'you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole; you run into ######## all day, you're the #######'?"


   1064. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:28 AM (#4345499)
Then surely, considering there are millions and millions of automatic weapons and a very small percentage used for mass murder, the gun manufacturers must be bankrupt because of returns of purchased automatic weapons, as the millions and millions of purchases that do not commit mass murder would have become disgruntled as a result of shelling out wads of cash for something which had no purpose to them.

I stand corrected. Their only application, outside of an active war zone, is mass murder. They do serve a purpose of making little men feel big. I apologize for the mistake.

I completely support handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. for protection of you and yours. Nobody's home or person is under such assault that they require an automatic weapon for personal protection. I know you are standing on principle here (that is, never allow any limits on guns) but you risk losing the whole argument by taking such an obviously ridiculous stand.
   1065. Tripon Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:35 AM (#4345501)

I'll save you a few bucks, here's the result of the study: Video games don't make anyone commit violent acts. However, once someone has decided they would enjoy committing a violent act, video game experience will make that person much more effective.


Basically, the plot of MGS2 and MGS4.
   1066. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:57 AM (#4345505)

Basically, the plot of MGS2 and MGS4.


I'll take your word for it.
   1067. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 12, 2013 at 05:10 AM (#4345506)
Yikes. You "don't really have a huge problem with suicide bomber attacks distinct from any other type of warfare"? "All war is immoral"? Those are some scary comments.
I may be getting them mixed up, but your arguments seem to imply that lefties should stop "demanding" to "strike down" 2A, and instead arm Palestinians so they can fight a proper war instead of having to blow themselves up, yes?
   1068. Jim Wisinski Posted: January 12, 2013 at 05:16 AM (#4345507)
In much more important news there will be no administration support for building a Death Star.

Among the reasons listed are the estimated $850,000,000,000,000,000 cost ("We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it"), and the known Death Star vulnerability ("Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?"). Perhaps most crucially, Shawcross points out that "The Administration does not support blowing up planets."
   1069. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 12, 2013 at 05:16 AM (#4345508)
I may be getting them mixed up, but your arguments seem to imply that lefties should stop "demanding" to "strike down" 2A, and instead arm Palestinians so they can fight a proper war instead of having to blow themselves up, yes?

You are, indeed, getting them mixed up. (Also, the Palestinians don't "have to blow themselves up.")
   1070. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 12, 2013 at 05:31 AM (#4345510)
You are, indeed, getting them mixed up. (Also, the Palestinians don't "have to blow themselves up.")
Ah. So you're saying that African Americans should have taken up arms, but Palestinians should stick to non-violent techniques?
   1071. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 12, 2013 at 05:38 AM (#4345512)
Ah. So you're saying that African Americans should have taken up arms, but Palestinians should stick to non-violent techniques?

Unless you believe Israel has enslaved the Palestinians or that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is based not on security concerns but a belief that Palestinians are second-class humans or even non-humans, this is a strange comparison. Beyond that, there's plenty of middle ground between non-violence and suicide bombers attacking school buses.
   1072. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 12, 2013 at 06:37 AM (#4345516)
I know you are standing on principle here (that is, never allow any limits on guns) but you risk losing the whole argument by taking such an obviously ridiculous stand.


Is anyone actually claiming this? I thought we'd collectively moved past the point of "you'll pry my .50 caliber machine gun for home defense out of my cold, dead fingers" ?
   1073. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 12, 2013 at 07:45 AM (#4345522)
No one is obligated to provide, to prevent the death of the traveler. Then what?

The government is obligated to provide. That's the sort of social safety net I'm suggesting.

I would like to hear some details on how this is supposed to work. Seems like it would necessitate for more infringement on people's property rights, than simply requiring businesses to serve everyone.
   1074. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 12, 2013 at 08:05 AM (#4345524)
This whole silly side-discussion began when you suggested that the Freedom Riders should have been armed, which temporarily copped the prize for lunatic suggestions.

Yes, carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense — crazy stuff!


It's not "crazy stuff" when you're protecting your home or property. It's beyond crazy when you're staging a public demonstration whose intent is to change the laws of the land. I doubt if this point is ever going to sink into your rather limited sense of reasoning, since you keep ignoring the distinction.

Now you're suggesting that if only slaves had had guns, they could have shot their way to emancipation.

Well, a lot of them could have, unless slave owners were bulletproof.


Sure, a group of slaves here or there might have stolen massah's guns in the middle of the night and killed him and his family, as happened in a handful of cases.

Then what? Were they going to declare an Independent Free Republic of New Africa and sign a peace treaty with neighboring slaveholders? What happens when they run out of ammunition and the state militia moves in on them?

Of course what you haven't quite addressed is how those slaves might have obtained their guns in the first place, given that not only were they penniless and propertyless, they themselves were a major part of the property.

I never suggested they could walk into Guns 'R Us and buy whatever they wanted.


You've never suggested any way that blacks could have obtained weapons in sufficient numbers to become a significant political force.

The discussion was regarding the utility of having guns in the first place.

Actually the discussion was specifically regarding the utility of the Freedom Riders carrying concealed weapons on their bus, at a time when the whole point of these demonstrations was to convince the white majority of the injustice of racial segregation, and to convince the northern white majority to enact federal laws that would forcibly override state and local (white) majority sentiment. It had nothing to do with the general proposition of personal self-protection in private situations. Nobody's saying that a black person in 1961, especially one living in the country, was stupid for owning a gun for protection of his person and property, but that's got nothing to do with freedom rides or sit-in demonstrations, no matter how many times you keep trying to conflate these completely different situations.

You've pointed out the obvious about a dozen times — that most slaves and Jim Crow-era blacks were unarmed — but you've also mocked the idea that having guns would have been of any benefit [see #934, #1047], so I really don't know what you're arguing here.

I'm simply pointing out what's obvious to every serious historian and everyone else on this forum: In the real world of ante-bellum America, as opposed to whatever cartoon world exists in your imagination, armed slave rebellions were a prescription for mass suicide. It's not that such rebellions didn't exist, or that Nat Turner's was the only one, it's that every last one of them was brutally suppressed, and did nothing more than add to the ferocity of the South's resistance to abolition.
   1075. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 12, 2013 at 08:10 AM (#4345526)
Yes, carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense — crazy stuff!
It's not "crazy stuff" when you're protecting your home or property. It's beyond crazy when you're staging a public demonstration whose intent is to change the laws of the land. I doubt if this point is ever going to sink into your rather limited sense of reasoning, since you keep ignoring the distinction.

So it's not "crazy stuff" to use a gun to protect a home or property, but using a gun to protect oneself apparently remains in the "crazy stuff" category.

That's, um, crazy.
   1076. McCoy Posted: January 12, 2013 at 10:10 AM (#4345538)
It's good to know Joe is a troll on historical subjects as well. How about on food and music? Please inform us on how Pavement is the worst band of all time and that all doughnuts should be topped with mayonnaise.
   1077. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 12, 2013 at 10:33 AM (#4345542)
Speaking of trolling, #1076 clearly is, and the personal attack therein is also a violation of the Terms of Service. I'm sure one of the lefties here will notify Jim.
   1078. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 12, 2013 at 11:06 AM (#4345550)
Boy are you whiny.
   1079. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM (#4345553)
Yes, carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense — crazy stuff!

It's not "crazy stuff" when you're protecting your home or property. It's beyond crazy when you're staging a public demonstration whose intent is to change the laws of the land. I doubt if this point is ever going to sink into your rather limited sense of reasoning, since you keep ignoring the distinction.

So it's not "crazy stuff" to use a gun to protect a home or property, but using a gun to protect oneself apparently remains in the "crazy stuff" category.


What's crazy is suggesting that the same tactic that makes sense in the case of defense of one's home is one that can be applied to political demonstrations whose point is to change public opinion, with the ultimate end of changing the laws. You might notice that not even your usual group of allies is backing you up on this one.
   1080. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2013 at 11:29 AM (#4345555)
I'm sure one of the lefties here will notify Jim.

Leave Bibi out of this.
   1081. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 11:31 AM (#4345556)
Speaking of trolling, #1076 clearly is, and the personal attack therein is also a violation of the Terms of Service. I'm sure one of the lefties here will notify Jim.


This from someone who just accused someone of being drunk? Who routinely accuses posters who box him in drunk or lying.

   1082. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4345577)
Sometimes I read through comments before signing in, just to get the full-on Joesperience.

Then I stop.
   1083. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4345583)
One highlight:
(Jokes aside, what's with this recent effort here to paint me as someone who's constantly backtracking and/or claiming to have been misquoted or misconstrued? I literally can't recall the last time I did either of those things here.)
9:11pm

None of the above is even remotely an accurate representation of anything I've said in this discussion. I never said "non-violence never works," I never said "Gandhi and Mandela were frauds." It's all fiction.
3:54am
   1084. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:37 PM (#4345589)
None of the above is even remotely an accurate representation of anything I've said in this discussion. I never said "non-violence never works,"


No, you just said it was a stupid tactic in a specific historical situation (the Freedom Rides) where the unanimous opinion of every historian is that non-violence was a key factor**, if not the key factor, in that movement's success.

**You might say that organization was "the" key factor, but the same organization without non-violence would never have been able to achieve its goals.
   1085. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: January 12, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4345645)

Glenn Beck has a dream. On Thursday, the former Fox News host, gold bug, survival-seed guru, movie star, and bestselling author unveiled plans for a new planned community—inspired by the Ayn Rand novel Atlas Shrugged—to be built at an undisclosed location somewhere in the United States*.

No, really:

Glenn believes that he can bring the heart and the spirit of Walt's early Disneyland ideas into reality. Independence, USA wouldn't be about rides and merchandise, but would be about community and freedom. The Marketplace would be a place where craftmen and artisan could open and run real small businesses and stores. The owners and tradesmen could hold apprenticeships and teach young people the skills and entrepreneurial spirit that has been lost in today’s entitlement state.

There would also be an Media Center, where Glenn's production company would film television, movies, documentaries, and more. Glenn hoped to include scripted television that would challenge viewers without resorting to a loss of human decency. He also said it would be a place where aspiring journalists would learn how to be great reporters.

Across the lake, there would be a church modelled after The Alamo which would act as a multi-denominational mission center. The town will also have a working ranch where visitors can learn how to farm and work the land.

Independence would also be home to a Research and Development center where people would come to learn, innovate, educate, and create. There would be a theme park for people to recharge and have fun with their families.

People would also have the option to live in Independence, with a residential area where people of different incomes could all come together and be neighbors.

Beck estimates the city-theme-park will cost about $2 billion to build, or roughly .002 trillion-dollar platinum coins, or .178 Fox News blue whales.


I guess I'd laugh, but if this thing ends up in Texas, I'll probably end up having to visit my parents there ...

Meh.
   1086. GregD Posted: January 12, 2013 at 02:42 PM (#4345654)
If they do it right, that would be a massively successful retirement center, no? That's definite achievable. What's harder but what I think for a while seemed feasible in the crazy Disney towns is getting 30s/40s people with kids to move there. On the Disney towns, though, I never heard much about local politics going crazy but this would have a chance to have some truly insane local politics. What happens when the libertarians realize how many zoning regulations have been put in place?
   1087. spike Posted: January 12, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4345660)
Sometimes I read through comments before signing in, just to get the full-on Joesperience.

When I check from my mobile phone I get enough to last a long time
   1088. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:03 PM (#4345664)
Are you intoxicated? If not, what happened to you? The old "Bitter Mouse" always used to talk about his preferences for civility and honesty, but it appears you've been interning with Sam or something. None of the above is even remotely an accurate representation of anything I've said in this discussion. I never said "non-violence never works," I never said "Gandhi and Mandela were frauds." It's all fiction.


Well it was late, so I was tired, but no I don't drink (well I had two whole hard cider so far this year, which is more than all of last year, so I may be on a slippery slope to drunken debauchery).

You have repeatedly accused me of various things like being drunk or stupid or whatever, but that is not at all why I came down on you. Actually I didn't come down on you, but your position (well mostly anyway). Your claim regarding non-violence and the civil rights era is so ridiculous I just could not muster the will to try to engage your arguments on a rational level and so made fun of what you said. I assume your skin is thick enough to take it, but it was a bit out of line and I do apologize.

If you want to try to explain your position on non-violence and its effectiveness I will do my level best to engage it, but honestly I think it best to just move on.

EDIT: By the way, what I said was not very civil I admit, but it was very honest. I honestly think your posts were dumb and mock-worthy, though it was uncivil to actually to so.
   1089. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:07 PM (#4345665)
If they do it right, that would be a massively successful retirement center, no?


For Yuppies and Hippies, perhaps. When I was a teenager, I was at a family reunion, sitting around the table with a bunch of my aunts and uncles who were talking about growing up dirt-poor in the depression era south. (We are a family name that fell from social graces in the genteel south sometime in the lead up to the Civil War.) Some of the youngsters - my generation - started talking about how they think it would be best if we all "went back to that way of living, with self-sufficiency and survivalism, like in the good old days," and my uncle, the older brother of six other siblings who grew up as my grandmother picked cotton as a share cropper in the Depression, says oh-so-quietly, "Folks wanna go back to the ways of 'the good ole days' never had to live through that ####."

Pete always was my favorite uncle.
   1090. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4345667)
Well it was late, so I was tired, but no I don't drink (well I had two whole hard cider so far this year, which is more than all of last year, so I may be on a slippery slope to drunken debauchery).


As a professional in this area, I can assure you, you're doing it wrong.
   1091. GregD Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4345671)
Doesn't Beckville already exist in Branson?
   1092. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4345676)
As a professional in this area, I can assure you, you're doing it wrong.


I love my liver and treat it well. Seriously though huge family issue with substance abuse, so I decided long ago to not go there (but I am OK with others doing what they will - within the law, naturally).

If I ever do decide to go on an epic debauch I will definitely page the good souls here in BBTF for advice though. If you are going to do something, do it well.
   1093. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:53 PM (#4345690)
You're a liar, a drunk, a thug,a child abuser, a racist, a sexist, an apologist for slavery; you refuse to, or can't, read, and, worst of all, you refuse to claim ownership of yourself. And if you retaliate with name-calling in kind, I'm going to run and tell Jim.
   1094. spike Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:09 PM (#4345696)
   1095. Jim Wisinski Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:19 PM (#4345698)
I hope somebody calls into Savage's radio show and asks if the leader should have Charlie Chaplin's mustache.

Edit: Maybe they can adopt the four-leaf clover, horseshoe, or rabbit's foot as a party symbol too.
   1096. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:23 PM (#4345701)
The new party's symbol should be, obviously, a Weiner and a teabag.
   1097. DA Baracus Posted: January 12, 2013 at 05:04 PM (#4345707)
Glenn Beck has a dream. On Thursday, the former Fox News host, gold bug, survival-seed guru, movie star, and bestselling author unveiled plans for a new planned community—inspired by the Ayn Rand novel Atlas Shrugged—to be built at an undisclosed location somewhere in the United States*.


If the Free State Project is any indication, this will go great! Reach for the stars Glenn!
   1098. Tripon Posted: January 12, 2013 at 05:08 PM (#4345710)
So Glenn Beck is going to literally create a town from scratch? Who's going to pay for that?
   1099. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 12, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4345723)
Michael Savage calls for new 'nationalist party" with "charismatic leader'.


Strictly "non-racist", of course. Which is a good thing, since Savage is Jewish.

Seriously, where do they get these clowns? Is it possible that people like Savage are nothing but one big Onion put-on? Has anyone ever seen him in person? Is Joe also on the Onion payroll? Is Joe himself even real, or is he just the resurrected spirit of Doug Kenney?
   1100. steagles Posted: January 12, 2013 at 05:41 PM (#4345729)
So Glenn Beck is going to literally create a town from scratch? Who's going to pay for that?
it's actually not a terrible idea.

i mean, our current infrastructure is based upon 19th and 20th century ideas of urban planning, so if we made the decision to start over by designing and building new cities that take advantage of new technologies, instead of just retrofitting our old ones, we would be much better off.


there's no doubt that beck is a nutter, but personally, i think is more of an example of a broken clock being right twice a day, than it is of evidence of beck's nutterism.
Page 11 of 29 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis on Acid
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFor Royals' Game 3 starter, road to World Series has been long and winding | FOX Sports
(1 - 9:26am, Oct 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3415 - 9:17am, Oct 24)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(45 - 9:11am, Oct 24)
Last: haggard

NewsblogWhat's Buster Posey's best trait as a catcher? Here's what his pitchers had to say - Giants Extra
(8 - 9:09am, Oct 24)
Last: Chokeland Bill

NewsblogKey question GMs have to weigh with top World Series free agents | New York Post
(29 - 9:08am, Oct 24)
Last: Bourbon Samurai

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(10 - 8:58am, Oct 24)
Last: Spahn Insane

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(1 - 8:57am, Oct 24)
Last: Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(869 - 8:53am, Oct 24)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(2 - 8:31am, Oct 24)
Last: Cris E

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(370 - 8:02am, Oct 24)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(14 - 7:43am, Oct 24)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogAJC: Hart says ‘yes’ to Braves, will head baseball operations
(16 - 6:46am, Oct 24)
Last: Flynn

NewsblogGleeman: Royals may bench Norichika Aoki for Game 3
(21 - 3:00am, Oct 24)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(39 - 11:25pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8370 - 11:22pm, Oct 23)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

Page rendered in 0.9980 seconds
52 querie(s) executed