Further Thoughts on Orlando

So I’ve been spending a couple of days letting the news gather, reading commentary and thinking about the Orlando massacre. What follows are a few gathered thoughts on the killing and issues related to it. The short version is that I find myself agreeing with Brian Doherty. As much as we want to stop these events, there’s not a lot we can do short of destroying our way of life. We are a free country. We allow people, at least in theory, to go anywhere they chose, to live in privacy, to express themselves as they wish and, yes, to buy and bear arms. Almost all of the “solutions” proposed for mass shootings involve crushing those freedoms for people who have not done anything: restricting someone’s freedom because some government bureaucrat thinks they might be a terrorist, maybe; taking away “assault weapons” that millions of Americans own and use without harm; expanding the power of government to monitor and control our lives.

These are all solutions running around in search of a problem they can solve. They will not be used to stop acts like the Pulse killings. They will almost certainly be used to prosecute the War on Drugs, to punish people for wrongthink and to crack down on groups we either don’t care about or don’t like. We’ve panicked like this before: internment of the Japanese, the Patriot Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Sedition Act of 1918. Let’s not keep repeating the errors of the past.

Damnatio Memoriae

In keeping with my earlier post on Sandy Hook, I will not type this terrorist’s name or talk about him in any but the most oblique terms. I believe that a significant motivation for both spree killers and terrorists is fame. I believe that one of the reasons they do what they do is so that they can become a household word. I have no delusions that a little blog will change this. But I’m going to keeping doing this anyway. Instead, I’ll name some of the victims:

The Gay Thing:

In the aftermath of these murders, a strange debate has raged over whether this killer attacked because he was a devotee of ISIS or because he hated gays. This debate has become fiercer now that we know he frequented the club from time to time. But … this should not a debate. Devotion to ISIS and hatred of gays are kind of related.

The killer swore allegiance to ISIS. ISIS commands its followers to kill Americans and to kill gay people. Did he kill gay people because he was devoted to ISIS? Or because of internalized hatred of his own possible gay tendencies? I would say, with 49 bodies on the ground, there’s plenty of blood to go around.

I do think it’s time that we stopped tolerating people who preach violence against gays — be they Imams or pastors sharing a stage with American politicians. I do think it’s time we call out those who supported Uganda’s anti-gay law, that originally prescribed the death penalty for gays (in a Christian country, not an Islamic one).

As for hate crime laws … I am very dubious of laws that criminalize thought. Yes, we differentiate between those who kill from anger and those who kill with pre-meditation. But criminalizing motive worries me. That having been said, if we’re going to have hate crime laws, if we’re going to expand them to include crimes against law enforcement as Louisiana did, we might as well expand them to cover LGBT people, who are, by far, the biggest recipients of hate crimes and violence in the country.

The Islamist Thing

This country is one giant soft target. There are growing indications that ISIS wants its followers to carry out attacks like this: surprise attacks on just one of the millions of undefended targets in this country. For the moment, they are using guns but it could just as easily be bombs or poison or trucks or planes. I think this demonstrates that we can not pretend that ISIS is somebody else’s problem. Do we have to wait until they pull off a 9/11-level attack?

But here’s the rub: it’s not clear what to do about ISIS. Airstrikes are fine, but ISIS can only be defeated with ground troops. Carpet-bombing sounds manly but millions of people are effectively hostages of ISIS. Drone strikes are useful, but limited.

Trump and many conservatives are making a big deal about Obama not saying the words “radical Islam”. This is strategic choice by Obama to try to maintain our delicate alliances in the Islamic World, including almost all of those who are on the ground fighting ISIS every day. You can disagree with this strategy, sure. But saying the words “radical Islam” are not some magical incantation that will make these monsters go away.

Ultimately, I think the course for us is more and better “soft” power: getting more allies on board in the region, waging cyber warfare against ISIS’s internet presence, ramping up our intelligence capabilities (while respecting the fourth amendment rights of Americans). And yes, this will mean tolerating the lesser evil of Assad in Syria to deal with the greater evil of ISIS. However … we have to accept that this is going to be a long haul and we may have to endure more attacks or attemps. ISIS wasn’t created overnight. Short of occupying the region with a million American soldiers, it will not be defeated overnight. And short of creating an invasive police state, we can not guarantee that we can find and stop their sympathizers in this country. A lot of thought has gone into stopping “lone wolf” domestic terrorists. And the conclusions so far is that … it’s really hard.

The Gun Thing … Again:

Of course, no shooting is complete until the Left, before we even know what happened, calls for gun control. Since the killing, Vox alone has run about 25 articles calling for gun control, many using dubious stats to argue that gun control works.

But the narrative is a bit more complicated here. This guy was a registered gun owner, a security guard who had aspirations of being a cop. He’d passed a background check.

A lot is being made of the fact that most of the last few mass shootings have involved AR-15 rifles (although this one did not; it involve a Sig Sauer MCX). This doesn’t mean much. There are millions of AR-15 rifles in this country, almost none of which are used to kill. Calling them “instruments of war” or “killing machines” is simply rhetoric. All guns are instruments of war and all guns kill. This is why you tell people to treat every gun as it it’s loaded and never point it at anything you don’t intend to kill. The Justice Department’s own evaluation of the assault weapon ban concluded that it did nothing. The previous most deadly attack — at Virginia Tech — used handguns, which can be just as deadly if not more than “assault weapons” in the hands of a deranged monster. In addition, the “assault weapon” designation is completely arbitrary, a marketing gimmick as much as anything else. The last assault weapons ban involved going through a catalog and picking weapons that looked scary.

The common refrain I’m hearing is, “Well, why do you need an assault weapon.” But we don’t need to prove things that we have a Constitutional right to; it is the government that must prove that it should take them away. In the case of machine guns or bazookas, it has made that case. In the case of assault weapons, it absolutely hasn’t.

The other proposal has been barring people on the no-fly list from buying guns. But the Left had admitted — numerous times — that the no-fly list is garbage, an arbitrary listing of people the government thinks might be dangerous. We don’t take away people’s fundamental civil liberties because some bureaucrat thinks they don’t deserve them.

Make no mistake: the goal here is gun confiscation. Whenever you say that, the gun grabbers say, “Oh, no! You’re being paranoid! We don’t want to confiscate guns!” But what use is an assault weapon ban if you don’t confiscate the millions of assault weapons already out there? Why do the gun grabbers talk about Australia as a model, which involved confiscating guns? What are they going to do when, inevitably, background checks and assault weapons bans and limits on magazine size fail to make a dent in gun violence?

Trump and Clinton … Again:

Look, I don’t expect the President to be our sob sister in times of national tragedy. I expect the President to lead. After 9/11, George W. Bush led. Granted, things went badly wrong eventually. But in the moment, he tried to unite us and make us understand who the enemy was.

Our two Presidential candidates have demonstrated, in different ways, what poor prospects they are. Clinton has been … all right, I guess. She hasn’t said anything totally insane. But she isn’t really leading; she’s flogging a political agenda, mostly centered around gun control. And she inadvertently set herself up for obvious quips:

Trump, on the other hand, has been awful. First, he patted himself on the back for “anticipating” another attack. Then he launched a deranged, lie-filled speech, calling for all kinds of things and blaming everyone in sight.

It’s pathetic that at this point in history, we have these two mentally-deficient hamsters as our candidates for President.

Politicians are Not the World:

One final thought I want to close with, from Conor:

There are deep divisions in America about how best to respond to gun violence, Islamist terrorism, attacks by people who are violent or mentally ill, and many matters besides, but it could hardly be otherwise in a diverse nation of more than 300 million people with vastly different life experiences, values, and empirical judgments. We live together, trying to address hugely complicated problems. Of course we often muddle through. While frustrating, there remains an overwhelming consensus that policy disagreements should be solved through the political process. And most Americans understand, at least on reflection, that our country is much more than politics and policy.

On Sunday, Americans on the allegedly divided right and left were both represented among the police officers who risked their lives to kill a rampaging gunman; the emergency room professionals who labored through horrific carnage to save lives; the local journalists who got timely information to their community; the community members who lined up for hours in Orlando to give blood; the gay people who bravely turned out at Pride rallies nationwide; the police officers who stood ready to protect them; the Muslim American leaders who denounced Islamist terrorism; the tens of thousands who began raising money for the victims; and the countless people in homes like mine and yours who heard the news and wept or trembled or prayed or gathered loved ones close because life is fragile and precious.

I once called 9/11 our finest hour. Because while I saw buildings fall, I also saw police and firefighters charging into those buildings. I saw people lining around the block to give blood. I saw our Congress warble “God Bless America”. I saw flags everywhere. I saw Red Sox fans pay tribute to the Yankees. I saw churches and synagogues packed. I saw a hardcore peacenik look up to see F-15’s flying overhead and call them our guardian angels.

This is important point to close with: we are more than our political class, more than our petty political squabbles. We are united more than we are divided. Everyone is appalled by what happened here. Everyone is united in opposing this violence. Think about that for a moment: this scumbag attack the gay community, partly because of his hatred and self-loathing … but partly because he figured we wouldn’t care. After all, who would care about dead gays? In Saudi Arabia or Iran or Afghanistan, this would be regarded as a righteous act.

But he was wrong. We do care. Whatever one may think of gays, gay sex and the gay “lifestyle”, these people were our countrymen. They were our brother and sisters, our sons and daughters, our aunts and uncles. If there are more than 30 people in your life, you probably know someone who is gay and it could be their cellphone ringing frantically and desperately on a blood-covered floor.

To hell with terrorists. To hell with ISIS. To hell with anyone would kill based on religion or sexuality. We’re stronger than them.

Comments are closed.

  1. AlexInCT

    As much as we want to stop these events, there’s not a lot we can do short of destroying our way of life. 

    The facts are that the people “pretending” (and that is in quotes on purpose) to want to stop these know they can’t do that and actually are using the crisis to advance a dangerous agenda. There is no way to prevent an evil/demented person bent on killing people from doing that. No system can stop everyone. So we need to balance risk vs. reward and make sensible and well thought out decisions. The people screaming the loudest about stopping these attacks at this time, praying on emotions, are not doing what they are doing to help anyone but themselves.

    Evil exists. Good men should not be punished or disarmed because of the fear felt by so many that for some unbelievable reason feel that disarming the populous and trusting government to protect us actually does anything but make things worse. Bad things happen. But society has always traded risk vs. reward.

    The left wants us unable to make a stand against the shit they are doing, so they will dash to raise a flag on any pile of corpses that let them do that. Unfortunately there are those on the right trying to do some of that as well for their own purposes. But the fact remains that disarming law abiding citizens will never result in anything good, no matter how well intentioned (and I never believe people that want to do this have any good intentions despite their claims) the action.

    But there are things we do need to do. First we need to stop dancing around the issue and admit that while we don’t want to be at war with these people, they are at war with us. If you can’t define the enemy and his cause, you cant fight them. What we are doing today is wasting time, and the enemy has basically smelled blood in the water because our reactions are tepid and timid, and more importantly, hurt law abiding citizens more than them. That has to end.

    I am not sure what Obama’s agenda is, the one he has been pushing throughout this administration, but if I go by the results of what he has accomplished, I am hard pressed to conclude that he has done a lot to basically cripple our ability to respond to these evil people and to weaken our country. Nobody has been more divisive, destructive, and done more harm to the American psyche. Obama hates this country and wants to bring it low. That is the only thing that allows me to make sense of what he has done so far. As far as I am concerned, the actions his administration has pursued have made things like this far more likely, and I think that was the intent from the start.

    We need to demand that the muslim community police these people. If they won’t then they are going to have to deal with an angry populous that eventually will react because they know the people in charge will do nothing to really help. And I am frightened that this is exactly what the left wants so it can then go full fascist and deprive us of our rights in one fell swoop.

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    I am not sure what Obama’s agenda is, the one he has been pushing throughout this administration, but if I go by the results of what he has accomplished, I am hard pressed to conclude that he has done a lot to basically cripple our ability to respond to these evil people and to weaken our country. Nobody has been more divisive, destructive, and done more harm to the American psyche. Obama hates this country and wants to bring it low. That is the only thing that allows me to make sense of what he has done so far. As far as I am concerned, the actions his administration has pursued have made things like this far more likely, and I think that was the intent from the start.

    This is Obama’s approach (or ‘agenda’) on this issue:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-goldberg-communism-islamism-isis/475833/

    And yet you’ll inevitably vote for Trump, who is about the closest you could get to an IS dream candidate.

    Thumb up 0

  3. richtaylor365

    In the aftermath of these murders, a strange debate has raged over whether this killer attacked because he was a devotee of ISIS or because he hated gays

    Credible evidence now exists that the shooter was gay himself. Self loathing does not qualify as a hate crime.

     Did he kill gay people because he was devoted to ISIS? Or because of internalized hatred of his own possible gay tendencies? 

    Or, how about that he picked this place based on it being a soft target? Was this place marked as a gun free zone? He has been there before, probably trolling for dates, and knew the likelihood that nobody inside was packing or could offer up any real resistance. Which touches on another subject. I’m at a loss to understand how one single guy could go on a 3 hour killing spree in a place with over a 100 people and nobody lifted a finger to take him down. Yeah, I was not there so I don’t know what if any efforts were made but it seems to me that just a few guys bum rushing the shooter could incapacitate him. When  Major Hassan was changing out magazine there were numerous people throwing chairs at him, whatever was not nailed down, at least they fought back. Was everybody cowering in a corner or the bathroom? With all those people (potential victims) inside, if only one person was packing, how many lives would have been spared?

     I do think it’s time we call out those who supported Uganda’s anti-gay law, that originally prescribed the death penalty for gays (in a Christian country, not an Islamic one).

    Nice deflection, but it is Islamic nations that kill gays.

     we might as well expand them to cover LGBT people, who are, by far, the biggest recipients of hate crimes and violence in the country.

    And most of these are frauds, made up shit by the victims themselves in  an effort to further their cause.

    But here’s the rub: it’s not clear what to do about ISIS

    The first step would be to recognize (and admit) how they came about in the first place, a predictable result of Obama’s abdication in both Iraq and Syria, and allowing both to descend into chaos.

    The notion that we must fight them over there so that they don’t come here is deader then dead. With open boarders and an administration that demonizes and restrains immigration enforcement, people need to realize that their safety lies within their own means to provide for that safety.

    This is strategic choice by Obama to try to maintain our delicate alliances in the Islamic World

    Can’t those alliances  still be maintained while at least being honest, calling a spade a spade?

     But saying the words “radical Islam” are not some magical incantation that will make these monsters go away.

    No, but it speaks to his entire philosophy in the matter, namely that there is no credible link (in his mind) to the religion of Islam and jihad. If you can’t blame it on an innocent video then use double speak to mitigate its effect.

    I think your gun commentary was pretty accurate as well as the sad state we find ourselves in, having to decide between 2 wholly deficient candidates. Just when I find myself maybe possibly holding my nose and voting for Trump, he goes and does something so Trump like, over and over. So no, I can’t do it, my dignity and self respect will be the only thing I have left come Nov. 8th.

     I saw our Congress warble “God Bless America”

    And what did you see 2 days ago? A handful of crybaby progressives walking out of the House hall in the middle of a moment of silence Ryan called for in honor of the Orlando victims. Never miss an opportunity to politicize a tragedy.

     

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  4. salinger

    While assault type looking weapons are legal I question the  mindset of people who want one. These semi-automatic weapons and their high capacity magazines are designed to at least look like full on military tools whose intended use is, plainly put, to kill a lot of people quickly.

    One can most likely buy and use a sex doll that looks like an underage child. This may be legal – and it is not the real thing – but I wonder about the mentality of the buyer and the morality of the manufacturer and seller.

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT

    While assault type looking weapons are legal I question the  mindset of people who want one. These semi-automatic weapons and their high capacity magazines are designed to at least look like full on military tools whose intended use is, plainly put, to kill a lot of people quickly.

    Most people that I know that own one of these, legally or otherwise, will tell you they have these to defend themselves when the left finally gets what it wants, and the agents of the state come for them. I can’t blame them anymore for thinking that way considering how fast we seem to be heading precisely in that direction. Without exception, every single one of these people are law abiding citizens and tax payers that just worry about how bad things are getting in this country. And nobody has the right to a sex doll, although I am sure liberals would invent one if it suited them.

    I am far more worried about people that think they have a right to tell me (or anyone)  what I (they) can or can’t do with my (our) constitutional rights, especially when they are affecting the one constitutional right that gives the people the ability to protect the other ones. Without the second amendment, the constitution would long ago have been turned into the equivalent of toilet paper the left wants it to be. The left would have done away with that annoying document that stands in their way of the collectivist Utopia (see the USSR/Cuba/China/Cambodia and so on).

    People seem to conveniently forget that the Obama Administration cleared this mass murderer to work for Homeland. If he could pass that check, please tell me how anything would have prevented him from committing this crime. What we need is a shift in attitude. This guy was tagged by many people as a disaster waiting to happen, and I am sure most chose to either keep quiet or shut up when they realized they would be punished for pointing out this guy was fucking nuts. The creation of protected classes and people that want to ban speech they don’t like combined to create this disaster. That another protected class was the victim of the lunatic shows you that no system can exist that protects people from everything, but that the one we have now that is intolerant of speech the left doesn’t likes and has straddled us with or one that punishes whistle-blowers that make the left look bad,will be exploited.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Hal_10000 *

     I’m at a loss to understand how one single guy could go on a 3 hour killing spree in a place with over a 100 people and nobody lifted a finger to take him down

    A security guard exchanged fire with him in the early moments. He then apparently holed himself up in a bathroom with wounded hostages for the next few hours.

    And most of these are frauds, made up shit by the victims themselves in  an effort to further their cause.

    No. They really aren’t.

    Abdication in Syria? What the hell were we supposed to do in Syria? Invade?  ISIS’s rise, to the extent you can tie it to Syria, is because we weakened Assad in supporting the rebels, allowing chaos to breed.

    Open borders? We’ve admitted 2000 Syrian refugees, each after about two years of investigation into their refugee status.  And this guy was born in this country.

    Thumb up 0

  7. AlexInCT

    Abdication in Syria? What the hell were we supposed to do in Syria? Invade?  

    We should have done nothing in Syria. Syria became a priority for Obama when he realized that people would be able to trace his abandoning of Afghanistan and Iraq as the point where ISIS became inevitable. In fact, we shouldn’t have gotten involved at all, either there or anywhere else, if we were not going to fight to win, and win decisively, Hal. That is our problem today: sanitized warfare doesn’t work. Our problem is a political class that is composed of one group that fights halfheartedly to avoid the scurrilous attacks from the other political party, or one that thinks it can leave a vacuum by squander the expensive near victory that their tactics cost, without someone then stepping in to fill that vacuum and forcing us to have to deal with the crap that comes from that.

    Open borders? We’ve admitted 2000 Syrian refugees, each after about two years of investigation into their refugee status.  And this guy was born in this country.

    The problem isn’t open borders – although illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be dealt with – but multiculturalism. When we tell barbarians that their culture and morals have as much value as ours, and give them a pass when they break our laws, we are going to end up with not just anarchy, but people that hold values and beliefs that are anti-ethical to our way of life. When you have lots of people that fall in that category, odds are very high some will act on it. Assimilation is what made America great. Now we are letting people in to destroy that American way, or as Obama put it, to fundamentally transform the country. Get used to a lot of this shit when you have people that hate their host nation and its freedoms, even if it is not also accompanied by a healthy dose of self loathing as this evil fuck did, and think this sort of act is justified to punish the wicked…

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    Abdication in Syria? What the hell were we supposed to do in Syria? Invade?  ISIS’s rise, to the extent you can tie it to Syria, is because we weakened Assad in supporting the rebels, allowing chaos to breed.

    And the Iraqis’ refused to extend the Status Agreement, so was Obama meant to re-invade? Does democracy get re-imposed again and again via invasion until “they get it right”?

    Thumb up 0

  9. Hal_10000 *

    Anytime we talk about the Middle East, I’m reminded of the words of P.J. O’Rourke.  It’s a region where two wrongs don’t make a right.  But it’s also a region two rights don’t make a right.

    Thumb up 0

  10. richtaylor365

    No. They really aren’t.

    Ah, YES, they really are;

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25586/

    http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/02/hate-crime-hoaxes-growing-epidemic/

    http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/

    And I could give you a dozen other links. And how funny that your link starts off with the false premise that the Orlando shooting was in itself a hate crime, which is untrue, or at least unproven.

    Open borders?

    Are you seriously disputing that? You honestly think our borders are secure?

     And this guy was born in this country

    Which further bolsters my point that these attacks can happen anywhere to anyone and that each is responsible for his own security and well being.

     

    Thumb up 0

  11. Hal_10000 *

    Ah, YES, they really are;

    So … by that logic, a woman at UVa lied about a rape.  Therefore, most rapes are made up.  With all due respect to Milo’s 40 interns, I’ll put my trust in police reports and documented incidents of anti-gay violence.

    No, the Orlando shooting was not a hate crime. But it was stewed in the cauldron of vile Islamic anti-gay bigotry.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Hal_10000 *

    BTW — there’s more information that’s coming out today.  We now know that the FBI had numerous warnings, including a warning from Disney concerned that he was casing the park.  We now know that we was almost certainly gay himself.  We now know that he continued to pledge to ISIS during the 3-hour standoff.  And we now know that his wife knew what he was going to do and warned no one, which could get her charged with something.

    Thumb up 0

  13. richtaylor365

     I’ll put my trust in police reports and documented incidents of anti-gay violence.

    But you won’t put your trust in the hundreds of police reports that document the initial complaints as false? Cherry pic much?

    But it was stewed in the cauldron of vile Islamic anti-gay bigotry.

    Jesus, what the hell does that even mean? For all you know this shooting might have been a lover’s quarrel that got out of hand. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?  Anti gay bigotry, coming from another gay person. More and more you come off as just another one of those silly SJW journalist peddling another narrative that suits their bias.

    Thumb up 0

  14. AlexInCT

    So … by that logic, a woman at UVa lied about a rape.  Therefore, most rapes are made up. 

    No, that is not how it works, so your analogy is invalid. What is irrefutable is that in the last decade or so, whenever the LSM has made a big stink out of something like this, and the left started screaming we need a bigger police state, with anyone that disagrees with the left being accused of being a hater, it turned out to be bullshit. From fake rape claims to fake racism claims, to fake homophobic claims, in case after case, when the truth is allowed to come out, it seems to be leftists of one ilk or another doing the shit they want to blame the other side of doing.

    When you have to manufacture the stuff you accuse the other side of doing to legitimize the agenda, or worse engage in that behavior yourself (the recent behavior of leftist at political rallies of the opposition vs. the behavior of the other side which was constantly accused of violence that never happened, for example), only to have the media downplay it, or even worse, not report it at all, we all lose.

    In the case of rape specifically, we keep hearing false statistics. Statistics that have been utterly debunked, because with the people that have an agenda, the facts really don’t matter when you have feelings about it!

    With all due respect to Milo’s 40 interns, I’ll put my trust in police reports and documented incidents of anti-gay violence.

    Then you are a fool. Without being able to corroborate what they report, you are making a big mistake just taking what they say for granted. There are now too many incidents of agents of the state lying, because they are covering their asses or following orders of superiors with agendas,  to push some agenda or another but practically always something that favors the left, for me to trust even these reports without the ability for some other corroboration or verification.

    We are still getting told today, even when the facts are out there to contradict this, that Matthew Shepard was killed by gay haters, when he was killed by some fellow gay meth dealers over a dispute related to drug money, just to name one example. Just like we hear nothing when the left’s problem children cause problems that the left usually accuse the other side of doing.

    Thumb up 0

  15. Hal_10000 *

    Anti gay bigotry, coming from another gay person.

    Good Lord, that’s dense.  How often have we seen someone screaming anti-gay bigotry only to be discovered having a gay lover on the side? How often does some Culture Warrior have to be caught propositioning men? Some of the most vehement anti-gay people in the world are so because of their own confused or gay sexuality.

    This guy was gay and raised in a religion telling him every day that this was evil and depraved, that God wanted to not only kill him but every other gay person in the world. He admired countries were being gay gets you tossed of buildings. And then he decides to go out in a righteous fire of murder and bloodshed.  The dots are not hard to connect here.

    Is it as bad in the US? Obviously not.  But it’s not all blow jobs and rainbows for gays in this country either.  And three of the Republican candidates — Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal — appeared at a conference head by Kevin Swanson who has called for the deaths of gays and supported Uganda’s attempt to make homosexuality a capital offense.  So don’t give me this fucking bullshit that anti-gay animus had nothing to do with this.

    n the case of rape specifically, we keep hearing false statistics. Statistics that have been utterly debunked, because with the people that have an agenda, the facts really don’t matter when you have feelings about it!

    Yes, I know. I’ve been debunking those myself.  But that some rape stats are bullshit does not mean rape  doesn’t happen all to frequently. Even the lowest estimate is that something like 1-in-10 over their lifetime. And I’ve blogged about the Shepard case too (although the claim that there as no anti-gay animus is still controversial).

    Even if Milo’s right, that’s … 100 fake incidents over ten years? Compared to approximately thousands of real FBI-documented hate crimes?

    I’m glad to know that anti-gay violence is a figment of the SJW’s imagination.  I’m glad to know that no one is murdered for being gay or gets the shit beat out of them for being gay or tries to get off a murder with a “gay panic” defense.  I’m glad that no one is thrown out of their home for being gay and that gay teens don’t have four times the rate of suicide as other teens because of social pressure and lack of support. I’m glad to know the FBI, controlled by SJWs, is conjuring up thousands of incident of anti-gay violence.  I’m glad to know this all doesn’t exist.  Because SJW’s and the Left and the media.

    Thumb up 2

  16. richtaylor365

     How often have we seen someone screaming anti-gay bigotry only to be discovered having a gay lover on the side?

    But then it’s not really bigotry , is it, or don’t you know the meaning of the word?  Tell me, when one gay does violence on another gay, can this be a hate crime, and can this be labelled as “anti gay violence”?

    Some of the most vehement anti-gay people in the world are so because of their own confused or gay sexuality

    Do you have any evidence at all that this arm chair diagnosis applies to the Orlando shooter?

    This guy was gay and raised in a religion telling him every day that this was evil and depraved, that God wanted to not only kill him but every other gay person in the world.

    How do you know how he was raised? Do you know if he was raised in  a strict Islamic practicing household? Your side (yeah, you have revealed your ideology in full bloom, so yes, you get that tag) keeps telling us that Islam is a religion of peace,  any proof that this household was Sharia complaint and that he was in fact exposed daily to a God that wanted all gays dead.  But we are making progress, finally, a progressive that admits how infected evil and cruel the Islamic religion really is, a religion that by your own words teaches that God wants him and all gays dead.

     And then he decides to go out in a righteous fire of murder and bloodshed

    But no proof (as of yet) that any of this was motivated by anti gay bigotry, right?

    The dots are not hard to connect here.

    Sure, if all your assumptions are correct, the jury is still out.

     So don’t give me this fucking bullshit that anti-gay animus had nothing to do with this.

    With what exactly? You seem perfectly willing to accept the premature notion that this was a hate crime specifically targeting gays, but again, you do not have one shred of proof other then speculation. Now that we know that he was gay himself, trolling gay chat rooms and being a regular at this gay club, you then throw out the horseshit that he must have been confused about his sexuality. How in the world do you know this? A perfectly plausible explanation could be that he chose this site as a soft target with no political or religious agenda, other then to commit Jihad against America in the name of Islam. Since you are making the assumption of anti-gay animus as the reason, the burden of proof is on you.

     But that some rape stats are bullshit does not mean rape  doesn’t happen all to frequently

    Thank you, Captain Obvious. Yes, we know that rapes do in fact occur, we also know that some rape allegations are false and we also know that some feminists peddle the false “rape culture” narrative to further their own agenda.

    I’m glad to know that anti-gay violence is a figment of the SJW’s imagination.

    I knew that your tendency towards Reductio ad absurdium would make it’s appearance sooner or later. No Hal, anti-gay violence is not a figment of the SJW’s imagination {sigh}.

     

    Thumb up 0

  17. WVRSpence

    So the Left, again, has been all about gun grabbing, including calls to get rid of the 2nd amendment, while Donald Trump says what he says and gets a petulant response from Obama, who still won’t call it radical Islam.

    Meanwhile we find out that the shooter was himself gay (as was apparently the guy they caught in L.A. going to a Gay Pride event.) Again, the Left is silent on this. But hey, we all get treated to the wisdom of Michael Moore, Cher, et al, ad nauseum. It’s the new normal of “discourse” and “national conversations” that only they want to have.

    Thumb up 0

  18. Hal_10000 *

    Tell me, when one gay does violence on another gay, can this be a hate crime, and can this be labelled as “anti gay violence”?

    Yes. If it were a twisted closet case who decided that other gay men are what have made him gay. If it were someone stepped in rhetoric telling him that gay men are evil and must be destroyed. Remember what the killer’s father said about seeing two gay men kiss.

    I’m Jewish. If I hung out with a bunch of Nazis, became convinced that my own religion was quintessence of evil and went out and burned down a synagogue, it would still be a hate crime. Self-hate is still hate.

    Do you have any evidence at all that this arm chair diagnosis applies to the Orlando shooter?

    Yes.  Reports from co-workers about his unhinged homophobic rants followed by his own attempts to meet up with gay people.  Do you have any evidence that this was a lover’s spat?

    How do you know how he was raised? Do you know if he was raised in  a strict Islamic practicing household? Your side (yeah, you have revealed your ideology in full bloom, so yes, you get that tag) keeps telling us that Islam is a religion of peace,  any proof that this household was Sharia complaint and that he was in fact exposed daily to a God that wanted all gays dead.  But we are making progress, finally, a progressive that admits how infected evil and cruel the Islamic religion really is, a religion that by your own words teaches that God wants him and all gays dead.

    I have never denied the violence and savagery that can accompany Islam. Although I realize that disagreeing with you on anything means I am an SJWProgressiveObamaLovingDemocratHillarySupporter. What I have denied is that is necessarily a part of Islam.  And I wasn’t talking about his dad, necessarily (although we’re finding out he has some crazy views).  I’m talking about someone who was sympathetic to ISIS, who travelled to Saudi Arabia, who then pledged allegiance to an organization that murders gays in public, who was known to go off on Islamist tirades about women and gays.

    Now that we know that he was gay himself, trolling gay chat rooms and being a regular at this gay club, you then throw out the horseshit that he must have been confused about his sexuality. How in the world do you know this? 

    Because he was married twice. Because his father denied he was gay. Because his co-workers have talked about unhinged rants he gave about homosexuals.

    No Hal, anti-gay violence is not a figment of the SJW’s imagination {sigh}.

    I wonder where I got that idea  Oh, wait:

    And most of these are frauds, made up shit by the victims themselves in  an effort to further their cause.

    Talk about reducto ad absurdem.

    Thumb up 1

  19. AlexInCT

    I’m glad to know that anti-gay violence is a figment of the SJW’s imagination.

    If it happened as often as they claim it does wouldn’t we be hearing about real cases instead of all the bullshit ones that have been grabbing the headlines? I mean why would people have to invent this shit, and get caught on the national stage doing that, if there were real cases we could point at. Frankly I can’t recall when one of these hate crime stories turned out to be real in over a decade. If this shit is as prevalent as we are told, I would expect the media to be able to report on them and for them to hold up. And yet, we have not had any of those in forever.

    I’m glad to know that no one is murdered for being gay or gets the shit beat out of them for being gay or tries to get off a murder with a “gay panic” defense.  I’m glad that no one is thrown out of their home for being gay and that gay teens don’t have four times the rate of suicide as other teens because of social pressure and lack of support. I’m glad to know the FBI, controlled by SJWs, is conjuring up thousands of incident of anti-gay violence.  I’m glad to know this all doesn’t exist.  Because SJW’s and the Left and the media.

    Nice strawman there man. What is your fucking point? Who said it doesn’t happen? I pointed out that if all this evil we get told was as rampant as they claimed it was, the left wouldn’t be showcasing all these false stories that end up going nowhere.

    And nobody bats an eye when shitty people do shitty things to other people that are not part of some specially classified minority. People say it is life, and move on. Bad shit happens to people. Even good people. Why am I expected to feel especially sorry or contrite only when it affects some “special people” that  others have told me are special? Frankly my advice to all these snowflakes is to toughen up. Life is a bitch and then you die. Despite the left’s fascination with victimhood, it remains a terrible way to define yourself. Instead of helping these people develop the ability to cope, we have given them a mechanism to make them weaker. Shame on the people that have done that.

    Thumb up 0

  20. CM

    Hal, your BINARY CLUB membership is hereby revoked. How dare you post entirely rational and reasonable comments. Clearly you also secretly loving the dancing on graves.

    Thumb up 1

  21. CM

    Just bizarre. No wonder the right is in so much disarray and no wonder Trump has so many followers. It’s like they’ve completely given up on any rational thought processes. Rather than dealing with reality, it’s all just anti-left, anti-Obama, nutjobbery. Alex was predicting splooge on my face and Section 8 was frothing at the mouth in the other thread because I brought up the gay aspect as something that might have more to it. Repmom said it was right up there with Hillary blaming Bengazi on a video. Because liberals ignore facts, and because of my warped mind etc etc ad nauseum. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

    Thumb up 1

  22. CM

    while Donald Trump says what he says and gets a petulant response from Obama, who still won’t call it radical Islam.

    And what would that achieve?

    In Obama’s own words:

    “When exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?” Obama said in a speech from the Treasury Department, after a meeting with his national-security advisers. “The answer is none of the above.”
    He added: “Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we really use that phrase, we’re going to turn this whole thing around.’”
    http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/obama-radical-islam-donald-trump/487007/

    Thumb up 1

  23. richtaylor365

     Remember what the killer’s father said about seeing two gay men kiss.

    And this makes sense to you, that a practicing gay man who for years hooked up with other gay men, would one day see two men kissing, then decides he has had enough and now wants to kill gays? Really?

    ’m Jewish. If I hung out with a bunch of Nazis, became convinced that my own religion was quintessence of evil and went out and burned down a synagogue, it would still be a hate crime. Self-hate is still hate.

    That example takes the cake, A Jewish guy hanging around Nazi’s and decides to torch synagogues, I’m speechless.

    Yes.  Reports from co-workers about his unhinged homophobic rants followed by his own attempts to meet up with gay people. 

    And yet we know that he frequented this gay bar for years, frequented gay chat sites, would pick up and dance with gay men, doesn’t sound like he was all that conflicted about his sexuality to me. As far as him being married, so what? Maybe he was bi, and those marriages did not last. But we do know that he continued to frequent this gay bar, sounds like the gayness won out.

    There is a youtube video with  Milo Yiannopoulos talking about his gay preferences. In it he describes an earnest and heartfelt desire to be heterosexual, how it would make his life so much easier and how about once a year he sleeps with women just to see if anything has changed, each time going back to being gay because that is who he is. You could call him conflicted but he doesn’t think so of himself.

     Do you have any evidence that this was a lover’s spat?

    None whatsoever, but then this entire post has been short on evidence, filled with assumptions and conjecture.

    What I have denied is that is necessarily a part of Islam

    So in one post you describe how this guy is subjected daily to the teachings of his faith, that God wants him dead and wants him to kill all the other gays, but here you say that daily lesson is not part of Islam? Do you even listen to yourself? Absolutely nuts. But yeah, CM thinks you are rational and reasonable, what a hoot.

    Talk about reducto ad absurdem

    No, it’s not. I provided link after link after link exposing many of these hate crimes as fraudulent, but where did anyone say ,”anti-gay violence is a figment of the SJW’s imagination”.    

    The absurd consequence is on your end, not mine.

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  24. CM

    None whatsoever, but then this entire post has been short on evidence, filled with assumptions and conjecture.

    Yeah the ‘facts’ are all back on the other thread, before we knew any of this. FFS.

    Thumb up 1

  25. Hal_10000 *

    That example takes the cake, A Jewish guy hanging around Nazi’s and decides to torch synagogues, I’m speechless.

    Except it happened.  During World War 2, there were Jewish collaborators with the Nazis, who were later imprisoned or executed for their betrayal. And it wasn’t just survival. Some of them believed in National Socialism.

    And it’s hilarious hearing people can’t hate their own group when, every day on this blog, we hear that the President of the United States hates America.  Or, more germanely, we see the deep misogyny that underpins radical feminism.

    As for Milo, you can also read Dan Savage, who has been gay a lot longer and can tell you a thing or about demented closet cases.  But yeah, I’m way out of line thinking that a guy who spewed homophobic rants and pledged allegiance to a gay-murdering cult murdered a bunch of gay people, at least in part, because of anti-gay hatred. Maybe he just thought the music sucked.

    Thumb up 1

  26. richtaylor365

    Except it happened. 

    You have a link for that? Where a Jew got won over by Nazi Ideology and torched synagogues?

    And it’s hilarious hearing people can’t hate their own group when, every day on this blog, we hear that the President of the United States hates America. 

    Not even remotely similar. Those that say those things believes Obama is NOT part of their group. But keep trying.

    who has been gay a lot longer

    Ah, now I see how your mind works. An older gay gets to negate anything a younger gay says, interesting.

     and can tell you a thing or about demented closet cases

    Yes, I’m sure there are some out there, too bad you have failed in lumping this shooter into that category. It is fascinating to watch how this whole episode progressed. First it was a hate crime targeting gays. Then we found out he was gay himself, oops. Then the bullshit arm chair wannabe psychiatrists who could not let the gay angle go, decided that he must be conflicted about his sexuality, yeah, that’s it. They (you) paint this made up narrative of self loathing, of hating himself and his lifestyle, tortured daily by his urges, demented closet case you called it, how pathetic. Totally ignore the fact that he was cruising this gay club for years, and being an active part of the gay community. But every day he hated hated himself, torn up inside. Then one day he witnesses a public display of affection between 2 gay men, and suddenly he snaps and decides to go postal. Listen to yourself, you should write science fiction………oh wait, you do.

    Tell me, how many gay Muslims do you think populate the earth? According to you they are all ticking time bombs where one ordinary innocuous catalyst could push them over the edge.

    Maybe he just thought the music sucked.

    So what was his excuse for visiting Disneyworld 3 times to scout it as a possible target? Too bad Mickey and company don’t have the brass knuckle lobby that the gays have otherwise violence on them would be a hate crime. No, I will stick with my original premise, that this gay nightclub was targeted specifically because it was a soft target with minimal entrances and exits and a floor layout that he knew intimately, chosen for maximum carnage.

    allegiance to a gay-murdering cult 

    Hey,more progress,you are finally coming round. But don’t just include gays, you know how this “cult” feels blasphemy, leaving the faith, and infidels in general, they all get the death sentence.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  27. Hal_10000 *

    You have a link for that? Where a Jew got won over by Nazi Ideology and torched synagogues?

    I was making an example of how someone can commit a crime against their own. The real-life ones mostly betrayed resisters. Those are just the famous ones.

    Thumb up 1

  28. Iconoclast

    Clearly you also secretly loving the dancing on graves.

    Fuck you, you colossal dick.  Gun grabbers do dance on graves.  If you had a brain in your head, you might figure out that I never claimed you yourself were a gun grabber.  Ergo, by extension, I never would have accused your personal, ultra-awesome bad-ass self of “dancing on graves”.

    Putz.

     

    Thumb up 1

  29. Iconoclast

    And again, I’m reminded of why I left.  The turd who calls himself CM apparently cannot help being a Kafka-esque dickhead, twisting what people say in an attempt to make them look bad, and to make himself look sooo put upon and abused by us meanies.

    Thumb up 1

  30. Iconoclast

    One more thing — I didn’t originally say” dancing” on graves.  No, I simply said “standing” on graves.   More Kafka-esque nonsense from CM.  He even got me to say “dancing on graves” just above.  How clever.

    Thumb up 1

  31. Iconoclast

    One more thing — I didn’t originally say “dancing” on graves.  No, I simply said “standing” on graves.   More Kafka-esque nonsense from CM.  He even got me to say “dancing on graves” just above.  How clever.

    Thumb up 1

  32. Iconoclast

    “When exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?”

    It would signal to the world that the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces recognizes an existential enemy of the USA.  By steadfastly refusing to use the label, he is downplaying the existence of that enemy, which could very well embolden that enemy.

    Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we really use that phrase, we’re going to turn this whole thing around.’”

    Look at the brave Obama, slaying another straw man.

     

    Thumb up 2

  33. ilovecress

    I really don’t want to get into the gun debate here, but something that you might find interesting in describing why the views on firearms are so different to us non-US citizens.

    We just got a breaking news alert – on the front page of the NZ Herald. The big story was that last night, at a party in Hamilton, a gun was fired. Police were called and a man was arrested. It’s a big deal. Note – no one was shot, just a gun fired.

    I’m not trying to say that this is better or worse or anything like that, but it’s a demonstration of how culturally Americans and non-Americans have wildly different feelings about firearms. It’s why I hardly ever wade into the gun debate, because whatever my views, I know that Alex (for example) and I are just starting from a very different place.

    Thumb up 2

  34. CM

    It’s probably impossible for you to fathom, at any level, how disgusting it is for gun-control advocates to stand on the graves of dead children and dead gays. At any level.

    Thumb up 0

  35. Tripper

    The common refrain I’m hearing is, “Well, why do you need an assault weapon.” But we don’t need to prove things that we have a Constitutional right to; it is the government that must prove that it should take them away. In the case of machine guns or bazookas, it has made that case. In the case of assault weapons, it absolutely hasn’t.

    I’m late to the party here, but I have to question this paragraph from the OP. When/how has the government made this case with regard to fully automatic rifles / machine guns?

    Why would making semi-automatic rifles harder to by be the “shredding of the 2nd amendment” we’re so often warned about, while almost nobody claims their rights are being infringed by fully automatic weapons being illegal?

    Thumb up 0

  36. Tripper

    A little more digging and some more info. The Firearm Owners Protection Act from 1986 was set to make machine gun ownership legal along with all the other stuff in the bill, when at last minute an amendment was added to make any new machine gun ownership illegal. It passed, so did the wider bill. The NRA didn’t mind and hasn’t seemed to since.

    Hard to really say the government made the case against them really.

    More info, from NPR here

    So I guess I’m still left with the question, why do so many 2nd amendment defenders put up with this obvious trampling of their freedoms? (Their right to buy and own a machine gun being so infringed like this)

    Thumb up 0

  37. JimK

    I don’t know how the government made the legal argument to outlaw fully automatic weapons without a special license. I can tell you as a gun owner and defender of the 2nd Amendment why I am personally ok with such a ban.

    Full auto is another order of magnitude in weaponry. The ability to send, in many cases, thousands of rounds per minute is a scale of destruction that is far, far greater than any semi auto firearm. Each trigger pull is a conscious decision with a semi auto. One pull, one bullet. The form of the firearm doesn’t matter at all. AR-15 or .22 target pistol, they all work essentially the same: one pull, one bullet.

    Full auto is one pull, and spray until the bullets run out. Most untrained shooters have enough trouble keeping a semi-auto on target due to recoil. Full auto, in most cases and calibers, jumps around like a bastard. The odds of hitting everything around your target greatly increase.

    So, the inherently more dangerous operation of a full auto weapon, coupled with the fact that it’s a significant – and I mean that word, as in “a whole shitload more – uptick in deadly capability, and I am OK with restricting them to people willing to go through the rigor of obtaining a Class 1 FFL (Federal Firearms License) and converting that to Class 2 under the NFA (National Firearms Act) and paying a SOT (Special Occupation Tax). That person has demonstrated that they are willing to leave a legal paper trail (it’s a lot of work and not cheap) and they will be required to demonstrate knowledge about the classes of weapons or destructive devices they intend to own or sell. That person, I trust with a machine gun.

    Me? I should not own one, and I am aware of how they work and how to control them (although I have no training). If I was willing to train, and then spend all that time and money to get the two levels of FFL I need, well that would be different.

    It’s all about the sheer scope of destruction. Non-gun people have no fucking idea how guns work, or how virtually any gun in the world can be a mass shooter’s weapon if they load enough magazines and practice speed loading. A revolver can be an “assault weapon.” The guns people want to ban are being banned for cosmetic purposes, not due to how they actually operate.

    Thumb up 3

  38. Iconoclast

    This is Obama’s approach (or ‘agenda’) on this issue:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-goldberg-communism-islamism-isis/475833/

    And this is how well it’s working:

    CIA Director Gives Grim Assessment of Fight Against ISIS

    “Our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach,” Brennan said.

    CNN’s Carol Costello reacted to Brennan’s report as most Americans would, noting that it “doesn’t inspire much hope.”

     

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  39. Thrill

    My own view of gun control is admittedly weird. I think all federal firearms laws are unconstitutional but that the states alone should be allowed to decide for themselves what the “militia” is, who is part of it, how it is regulated, and what armaments the people can equip themselves with.

    If a state wants to only recognize the National Guard as its militia and restrict ownership of all semi auto rifles, I say that’s as acceptable as a state (such as mine) that recognizes both the NG and an unorganized militia that allows the ownership of those weapons.

    The current situation is just another example of something that’s a problem because the federal courts and Congress made it a federal issue when they never had the authority to do so in the first place.

    Thumb up 0

  40. ilovecress

    Not to derail, but did you guys see that a UK MP was assassinated yesterday. Looking like the killer had ties to white nationalism and used ‘an old fashioned gun’.

    The Brexit stuff has been getting nasty, but I don’t think any of us thought we’d got this far. Horrific.

    Thumb up 0

  41. richtaylor365

    Looks like the FBI screwed up again;

    “About five or six weeks ago, Omar Mateen came into the store and he was requesting body armor,” Abell told a group of reporters at a press conference he assembled outside his gun store Thursday afternoon.  Abell’s employee grew suspicious of Mateen after a series of questions that, according to Abell, were “not normal questions about body armor.”

    After being turned away on his body armor requests, Mateen then did something that should raise eyebrows and red flags at the Department of Homeland Security.

    “At this time, he pulled away and got on his cell phone. When he was on the cell phone he had a conversation in a foreign language. That was more concerning. Then he came back and he was requesting ammo. He wanted bulk ammo only. At this time we declined any business and he left the store.”

    Isn’t this what we want gun store owners to do, report suspicious activity? And what could be more suspicious then a foreign looking dude asking for body armor and mass quantities of ammo and chatting about it in a foreign language on his cell phone? Even if the shooter had not been investigated by the FBI twice in the past, at the very least the FBI should have followed up with a visit to the gun store. How hard would it have been to contact a FISA judge and get warrant for the shooter’s phone dump. With phone records in hand they could have (probably) identified the ISIS handler. Further phone records would have alerted them to the impending attack and nabbed him pre shoot out.

    Given how the FBI screwed up the IRS scandal investigation (closing it out without interviewing a single tea party organizer or lawyer to find out what happened) and their snail like crawl in looking into Hillary’s emails, I guess I should not expect J. Edgar Hoover like results, in anything they do.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  42. Hal_10000 *

    Rich, I agree.  It really looks like the FBI dropped the ball on this one.  The story is that the gun store that reported him didn’t get his name.  But you had all kinds of red flags going up here.

    Honestly, I think Thrill got it right on Twitter.  This whole push for gun control is just a way of deflecting attention from how utterly the Obama Admin has flubbed the War on Terror.

    Thumb up 0

  43. Tripper

    Jim. That is a great response, thanks for taking the time to type it all out. Seriously.

    It’s a very rational response, and I don’t necessarily disagree with it too much, even as a non-gun person, who probably would favor a bit more gun control than you do.

    What stands out is how different it is from most responses on gun control posts on the internet (and certainly on forums/pages owned by you as you know)

    Most on the <i>less gun control</i> side of things usually get hung up around “shall not be infringed! what part of this don’t you get?”, and yet I never hear these people complain about their right to own a machine gun being ‘shredded’, even while they scream like their nuts are in a vice about the prospect of universal background checks.

    My issue with these folks is that they view themselves as 2nd amendment absolutists, and yet, unless they truly believe that any law abiding citizen with the cash to buy it, should be able to own a machine gun (and not to pay the inflated tax, I mean just to buy the item), then really they just draw a different line as to what gun control laws are appropriate, than I do.

    I think more gun control is appropriate than you do, or than Hal does (another rational voice though, I like your posts Hal). I don’t want to grab your guns, I don’t want to disarm everybody, I just favor a different shade of gray.

    Thumb up 0

  44. Christopher

    Hey Hal, someone just shared this article in a group I’m a member of and I’m curious of your thoughts on it, particularly any pertaining to the claims made about research done by Mark Duggan and the following two paragraphs:

    http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21700596-evidence-growing-gun-violence-america-product-weak-gun-laws-guns?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Fgunsinamericaahistoryofviolence

    I’m dubious, but I’m curious if it’s something that you’ve seen before.

    Thumb up 0

  45. JimK

    Thanks Tripper. I’m pretty against what Democrats in the US call “gun control.” It’s just a thinly veiled start to a complete ban and confiscation.  Most of what they advocate for has no basis in fact, be those facts crime statistics or the physical operation of a particular weapon.

    But I’m not against reasonable measures based in reality. I’m against the idea of passing a law or laws because “We have to do something!!! #thinkofthechildren” In this case, I agree that the government has an interest in limiting civilian ownership of full auto (or selective fire, I think is the technical term) weapons. I’m sure I could be convinced that other measures are reasonable if you show me un-manipulated data that proves a necessity. Being kind of libertarian, I also would want proof that the government has the right to do it, and a compelling interest in the outcome (legally speaking).

    But then I’m an anomaly. I hate the idea of taking governmental action based in emotional pleas. I don’t often fall for emotional rhetoric when it comes to laws and government (I’m not impervious to it, but it works less on me than the people I see around me). Most people make political decisions based on emotional please. The entirety of the two candidates running for the US presidency prove it. Neither are qualified, and neither have said anything at all to demonstrate they deserve a chance to run the country. But Hillary is running on her vagina and a sense of entitlement, and Trump is running on being a “outside the establishment” blowhard reality star. Purely emotional on both their parts.

    Unfortunately, emotional appeals are almost always more successful than facts.

    Thumb up 1

  46. AlexInCT

    Rich, I agree.  It really looks like the FBI dropped the ball on this one. 

    Not just the FBI, but local authorities too. And didn’t this scumbag work for the DHS? What about them? I also read that several coworkers turned a blind eye to some real serious red flag behavior after one of them got a load of shit for bringing up that the muslim guy was showing signs of going postal.

    I can understand the fear of over reaction in today’s fucked up PC world where we still have a president that can’t even say this was a radical islamist murdering people for their cause, but when you have these many indicators, something went wrong. Usually I would have dismissed the Monday night quarterbacking, but the mountain of shit, including multiple investigations that seem to have gone nowhere, seems to indicate that someone really fucked up.

    I bet nobody gets held accountable but the NRA, law abiding gun owners, and conservatives though.

    Thumb up 1

  47. CM

    Not just the FBI, but local authorities too. And didn’t this scumbag work for the DHS? What about them? I also read that several coworkers turned a blind eye to some real serious red flag behavior after one of them got a load of shit for bringing up that the muslim guy was showing signs of going postal.

    So can you walk me through what might have happened as an alternative, and how that might not have resulted in this attack?

    we still have a president that can’t even say this was a radical islamist murdering people for their cause

    What difference would it make? Is there some sort of confusion that people are talking at cross-purposes? Are there a whole lot of different terrorists that your government would be going after if he unlocked the magic password? Seriously, what is this?

    I bet nobody gets held accountable but the NRA, law abiding gun owners, and conservatives though.

    I think the shooter has been held accountable already, being dead and all. But beyond that, there is no accountability anyway. That has long gone by the wayside.

    Thumb up 0

  48. CM

    No, but it speaks to his entire philosophy in the matter, namely that there is no credible link (in his mind) to the religion of Islam and jihad. If you can’t blame it on an innocent video then use double speak to mitigate its effect.

    It’s a simple acknowledgement that it’s better to have more Muslims on-side. Rich, what would be gained? How is it not more than a magical incantation as Hal suggested?

    Comes across as yet another ODS symptom.

    Also, Iconoclast wants to know – how did you become an expert on what is in Obama’s mind? Seems like fairly definitive language you’re using there?

    Thumb up 0

  49. richtaylor365

    Comes across as yet another ODS symptom.

    And you continually giving him reach arounds  comes across as yet another OIS symptom, that accomplished a lot.

    Jesus, even Bob Beckel, the biggest progressive stooge out there (present company accepted) gets it;

    “I think he was strongly affected by Muslims. I think in his dream of dreams he hopes that these guys aren’t really Muslims and he doesn’t want to call them Muslims because he does like Muslims,” he said on FOX News.

    And as far as what’s in Obama’s mind, we have had almost 8 years of watching what he does and listening to what he says to figure that out. He is totally incapable of making the connection between Islam and terrorism, he can’t even say the words.

    This is the same guy that said ,”The future does not belong to those that slander Islam” (if he only cared half as much for his declared religion, Christianity). This is the same guy who just days before the Paris attacks told us ISIS was “contained”. He then sends Rhodes out with ,”There is no credible threat to the homeland at this time”, shortly after we have San Bernardino.

    He is peddling a false narrative, a narrative where the world is safer and more stable, when in reality, it is just the opposite.  He did nothing to help the Iranian freedom fighters, ignored his generals and pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, rejected the pleas of his top advisers (Petreaus/Clinton/Peneta) to arm the moderate Syrian rebels. His Syrian ambassador resigned in total disgust, and now we have 51 top State Dept. officials penning a letter, also voicing disgust at this clown of a president over his lack of involvement in Syria.

    It is Obama’s reluctance to connect the teachings of Islam with radical murderous jihad that was caused blowhards like Trump to become popular. Anyone that can admit the obvious, namely that we are at war with them because they are at war with us, will gain traction in the vacuum of Obama’s own making.

    But we have been over this time after time after time, you are a true believer of the faith, unshaken in your man crush. This is where Alex reminds me of the insanity definition and I will have to admit he is right, all of a waste of time.

     

    Thumb up 0

  50. CM

    Wow Rich, that just looks like a list of right-wing talking points. You’ve apparently blindly swallowed them, hook, line and sinker. Do you ever try to actually be objective about any of this? Or do you just not care because you hate him so much? I thought your low point was criticising Michelle’s private party, but lately you’ve been just awful. Has it really gotten that bad?

    And as far as what’s in Obama’s mind, we have had almost 8 years of watching what he does and listening to what he says to figure that out. He is totally incapable of making the connection between Islam and terrorism, he can’t even say the words.

    Did you even bother to read the Atlantic piece, or do you have your fingers permanently in your ears and eyes? Again, you’re just parroting talking points and ignoring the fact that there’s an explanation that makes much more sense.

    This is the same guy that said ,”The future does not belong to those that slander Islam”

    What’s wrong with saying that? Why would a future belong to any group that slanders another? It certainly shouldn’t, that would be moronically counter-productive. Why do you want to enable the very people (the Islamic terrorists) you’re supposedly so against? Why would you want to be part such such a co-dependent relationship with such fucks?

    (if he only cared half as much for his declared religion, Christianity).

    Not sure what you mean by that (but it figures, as every single little thing Obama has ever done in his life must automatically be wrong, it’s just a matter of figuring out how and why).

    This is the same guy who just days before the Paris attacks told us ISIS was “contained”.

    Dishonest ODS right-wing talking point.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/ben-rhodes/what-barack-obama-said-about-isis-being-contained/

    He then sends Rhodes out with ,”There is no credible threat to the homeland at this time”, shortly after we have San Bernardino.

    You have evidence that there WAS a specific credible threat? Or is this just more laziness? Since when does ISIS go after health centres?

    He is peddling a false narrative, a narrative where the world is safer and more stable, when in reality, it is just the opposite. 

    Where is your evidence of this? Why aren’t you the one peddling a false narrative. You sure don’t appear have very good news sources, they appear to be just talking points and you’ve looked no further.

    He did nothing to help the Iranian freedom fighters

    Again, there was a good reason for this. You might disagree with the reason (no surprise there, it’s Obama) but the alternative could have been way way worse for them. But sure, you continue to pretend there was only one decision to make. Remain blind to how US influence in Iranian affairs was likely to strengthen govt support.

    ignored his generals and pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan

    Bush fucked over Afghanistan when he determined that Iraq must be invaded. Still waiting for you to explain how there was another option other than pulling out of Iraq, given that the Iraqi parliament refused to agree to a continuation of the Status Agreement. Re-invade?

    His Syrian ambassador resigned in total disgust

    The ambassador who later said the rebels were disjointed and untrustworthy because they collaborate with jihadists? Again, not something that’s as straight-forward as you claim.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24780202.html

    and now we have 51 top State Dept. officials penning a letter, also voicing disgust at this clown of a president over his lack of involvement in Syria.

    Again, not taking military action doesn’t make Obama “clown of a president”, even if 51 mid-level officials think it’s the way to go. Way to lay it on thick. He’s been concentrating on attacks against ISIS, which appear nowhere on your list (what a shock!).

    The president has resisted such pressure, and has been backed up by his military commanders, who have raised questions about what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power — a scenario that the draft memo does not address.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/syria-assad-obama-airstrikes-diplomats-memo.html?_r=0

    No doubt if he did, you call him names for going against the advice of his military commanders. This is how you roll.

    It is Obama’s reluctance to connect the teachings of Islam with radical murderous jihad that was caused blowhards like Trump to become popular.

    Nonsense. It may be a minor reason, but it’s certainly not a major one and certain far from the only one. For example some will be supporting him for his overt racism, and some his sexism, and some as they see the bully they’ve always been.

    Anyone that can admit the obvious, namely that we are at war with them because they are at war with us, will gain traction in the vacuum of Obama’s own making.

    They gain most traction when the American right starts sabre rattling and throwing around counter-productive rhetoric. Again, why keep enabling them?

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  51. AlexInCT

    So can you walk me through what might have happened as an alternative, and how that might not have resulted in this attack?

    I know I will regret this and it is a useless exercise, but let me put it to you this way: If this guy had been Christian or just one of those people that the Obama administration classifies as a domestic terrorist (people that point out Obama and the left are crooks), I can guarantee you that the first time he had said or done any of the things he actually did and got a pass for because people were afraid of the retaliation when they pointed out a muslim was saying them, that he would have been done for. The FBI would not have cleared him, he would have lost any credentials he had, and landed on some watch list that made his life an unlivable hell under the microscope.

    The thing is that I am sure you know this exactly the case CM, but you are just wasting our time with your usual bullshit semantics. The Obama administration has been about punishing the perceived enemies of the left, and Obama and the democratic in particular, while giving real dangerous people in the islamic death cult not just a free pass, but access to the highest levels of this administration.

    As I recently heard someone point out: yeah, I know this is all conspiracy theorists waxing idiotic, but if Obama really were this manchurian candidate hell bent on our destruction, what would he really have done differently? And the answer there is not much, if anything.

    Thumb up 0

  52. richtaylor365

     Or do you just not care because you hate him so much?

    So typical of your side, the guy that complains the most about “binary” comments is the most binary practitioner. I don’t hate Obama, don’t even know him, but since I criticize what he does I must hate him (or be a racist, take your pick of 2 lazy choices). What a simple uncomplicated world you live in, absolutely lazy of course, but certainly uncomplicated.

    the fact that there’s an explanation that makes much more sense

    “Did you even bother to read the Beckel piece, or do you have your fingers permanently in your ears and eyes? Again, you’re just parroting talking points and ignoring’, gee this is easy, all I have to do is cut and paste your banality right back at you. Beckel had it right, an honest assessment which you can’t even muster, too bad for you.

    What’s wrong with saying that?

    Well, for the obvious reason (apologies, using the word “obvious” with you is an exercise in futility) that much like BLM, singling out one group to the demise of another makes your message meaningless. But, as Beckel said, when you grow up with Muslims, listening to Muslims spread their propaganda, bringing yourself to a critical thinking point where you challenge the logic or rationality of that message might be beyond you, it certainly is with Obama and you.

    Again, there was a good reason for this.

    No, there wasn’t, he did what he always does, hide under his desk or go play golf;

     During their brutally suppressed protests in 2009, Iranian freedom fighters sent the White House an urgent memo calling for help. Under Obama, America ignored it.

    ‘So now, at this pivotal point in time, it is up to the countries of the free world to make up their mind,” Iranian opposition leaders told the Obama administration in an eight-page memo in 2009. “Will they continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late, or will they reward the brave people of Iran and simultaneously advance the Western interests and world peace.”

    President Obama made his choice, and like so often before it was to vote “present.”

    given that the Iraqi parliament refused to agree to a continuation of the Status Agreement

    Another false narrative, you guys are full of them;

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380508/no-us-troops-didnt-have-leave-iraq-patrick-brennan

    Obama made a promise to his pacifist  believers, to get out of Iraq by hook or by crook, he chose by crock, negating all the gains obtained by the surge.

    More sources;

    Still, Obama had three years to negotiate a new agreement prior to the Dec. 31, 2011, withdrawal date to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq. In fact, a day before Bush signed the agreement, Gen. Ray Odierno — the former commander of the U.S. troops in Iraq and currentArmy chief of staff — said the agreement might be renegotiated depending on conditions on the ground. “Three years is a very long time,” Odierno told the New York Times.

    —–

    Panetta said the Obama White House did not press hard enough to reach a deal — a point that Bush makes in his speech. Panetta wrote that the U.S. “had leverage” and could have “threatened to withdraw reconstruction aid” if Iraq didn’t agree to “some sort of continued U.S. military presence.”

    Again, not something that’s as straight-forward as you claim.

    Straight forward enough for him to resign, a pretty drastic action if you ask me. But considering the longevity of foreign ambassadors in the ME under Obama’s watch, this sure as hell beats getting murdered by terrorists and having your death blamed on some stupid video.

    Again, not taking military action doesn’t make Obama “clown of a president”

    No, that moniker was earned by 8 years of clownish demonstrations and actions.

     It may be a minor reason

    I guess you don’t put any credence in polls, and what the folks are telling pollsters.

     For example some will be supporting him for his overt racism, and some his sexism

    Who? Please prove that preposterous assertion. Can you provide a quote from some one who is backing Trump for his alleged racism or sexism?

    Again, why keep enabling them?

    We “enable” them by existing, by continuing with our way of life. Crickey, why is that so hard for you to get?

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  53. Iconoclast

    Wow Rich, that just looks like a list of right-wing talking points.

    Well, most of what you post looks like nothing but a list of left-wing talking points.  You’ve apparently blindly swallowed them, hook, line and sinker. Do you ever try to actually be objective about any of this? Or do you just not care because you hate Trump/Bush/conservatives so much?

    Did you even bother to read the Atlantic piece, or do you have your fingers permanently in your ears and eyes?

    Can’t speak for Rich, but yeah, I read it.  So what?  It’s just Obama justifying his refusal to make the connection, for “fear” of getting “ordinary” Muslims upset with us.  Bullocks.  Obama is going above and beyond merely not making the connection.  He’s going into what amounts to Orwellian censorship.  When the FBI released the transcript of the Orlando shooter’s phone call, the references to ISI-whateverthefuck were chain-sawed out.  I mean, why bother, when it’s already been reported what he said?

    No, it appears that something far more insidious is going on.  If the Obama Administration can sever the links between mass shootings and Islamic terrorism, then presto!  The events are no longer examples of Obama’s “strategy” being an utter failure, no longer examples of Islamic terrorism, but examples of ordinary, run-of-the-mill gun violence!  Neat!  We already have a prepackaged solution for that (more gun control)!  And this latest one has the added benefit of having gay victims!  Another example of our rampant homophobia! Praise Marx!

    You can call me paranoid, tell me I suffer from ODS and all the rest of it, but frankly, I don’t give a tinker’s damn.  The above scenario does make sense when you consider the overarching left-wing narratives and agenda.  Again, why censor the phone call transcript?  What good could that possibly serve?  The shooter said what he said; trying to hide it is positively Orwellian.

     

    Thumb up 0

  54. CM

    The FBI would not have cleared him, he would have lost any credentials he had, and landed on some watch list that made his life an unlivable hell under the microscope.

    They monitored him for 10 months. There was nothing. He was a ‘domestic terrorist’.

    while giving real dangerous people in the islamic death cult not just a free pass

    Being monitored for 10 months isn’t being given a ‘free pass’. You can’t have it both ways. If they locked him up, it would be the tyranical government over-stepping their powers and detaining people purely on suspicion.

    if Obama really were this manchurian candidate hell bent on our destruction, what would he really have done differently? And the answer there is not much, if anything.

    What would he have done differently in terms of Orlando? I don’t think any President would have done anything differently. You can’t stop lone wolf homicidal homophobes with no actual links to Islamic terrorists going off the deep end.

     

    Thumb up 0

  55. CM

    So typical of your side, the guy that complains the most about “binary” comments is the most binary practitioner.

    It’s not binary to ask these questions. In fact the act of asking questions indicates the opposite.

    I don’t hate Obama, don’t even know him

    I’d hate to see how you react to someone you actually hate then. You’re practically foaming at the mouth. You’re getting into deeply personal stuff like criticising private parties. By promoting what Beckel says as some sort of truth, that can explain everything about Obama, you are claiming to know him intimately.

    but since I criticize what he does I must hate him (or be a racist, take your pick of 2 lazy choices). 

    Not sure where you get the ‘racist’ from. Try sticking to what is actually being written. No, the hate comes through strongly in the language you use and the fact that you seem to think that every single thing about him his wrong (you’ll even rely on some mindset you think he has).

    There is plenty of room for criticism. You and others just go way over the top and undermine yourselves because it starts to come across as unhinged.

    What a simple uncomplicated world you live in, absolutely lazy of course, but certainly uncomplicated.

    The opposite is true. You’re implying that it’s all uncomplicated and that if Obama didn’t take your preferred option, then he’s wrong. Again, you seem to have just parroted a series of talking points.

    Beckel had it right

    How do you reach this conclusion, other the fact that you want it to be true so criticising is easier? Make him into a boogeyman and then you can be as lazy as you like.

    Well, for the obvious reason (apologies, using the word “obvious” with you is an exercise in futility) that much like BLM, singling out one group to the demise of another makes your message meaningless.

    How is it to the demise of another? Who is being demised by suggesting that the future does not belong to those that slander Islam?

    But, as Beckel said, when you grow up with Muslims, listening to Muslims spread their propaganda, bringing yourself to a critical thinking point where you challenge the logic or rationality of that message might be beyond you, it certainly is with Obama and you.

    Those darned Muslims huh! Well then all rational discussion about Obama’s decision-making with you is pointless. You’ve already decided. Again, way to count yourself out of being taken seriously at all.

    No, there wasn’t, he did what he always does, hide under his desk or go play golf;

    Your Investor’s Business Daily editorial (is where you go for this expert analysis?) doesn’t say there wasn’t.

    Bu anyway I actually kinda agree on this one – I can see the arguments for and against, but I would have leaned towards providing more assistance. The obvious issue is – if what you provide isn’t enough to make sufficient difference (i.e. bring down the bad guys), then you would have been better off doing nothing, because otherwise it plays right into the hands of the people you’re trying to oust.

    Middle East expert Juan Cole:

    But the Obama administration did reach out behind the scenes to Green Movement to encourage it. Obama also referred to it positively in speeches. But an aggressive announced support of the sort the Republicans say they wanted would have simply raised questions in the minds even of Green supporters as to whether the movement was a CIA-backed ‘color revolution.’ Such charges were made by the Khamenei faction, but were mostly dismissed by Iranians as a result of Obama’s low-key approach.

    http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/top-ten-republican-myths-about-obama-and-iran.html

    Again, you (and I) might disagree with the level of support given, but the rationale is there and makes sense.

    Another false narrative, you guys are full of them;

    From your own piece;

    one should never be too confident in counterfactuals.

    I.e. it’s not as simplistic as you like to keep making out on all your argument.

    We don’t know, as Hayes points out, what an ongoing U.S. troop presence would have meant for Iraqi security, the nature of the Iraqi army, and the behavior of the Maliki government — maybe it wouldn’t have helped at all.ISIS is more or less a creation of the invasion of IraqThe roots of ISIS also remind us that we should be humble about the unintended consequences of U.S. intervention

    This last one was also the rationale in terms of assisting the Green Party in Iran.

    Obama made a promise to his pacifist  believers, to get out of Iraq by hook or by crook, he chose by crock, negating all the gains obtained by the surge.

    The reality was not even remotely that simple. The Iraqi parliament was feeling the heat from the Iraqi people, who had had enough.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/us-troops-are-leaving-because-iraq-doesnt-want-them-there/247174/

    It doesn’t matter how ‘hard’ you work – if they don’t want you to be there, then they don’t want you to be there. Wasn’t one of the reaons you invaded so they could make these decisions themselves?

    I guess you don’t put any credence in polls, and what the folks are telling pollsters.

    You mean the polls which show Obama’s job approval hitting record levels for someone at this point in his Presidency (most likely because people can see what the alternatives are)?

    Who? Please prove that preposterous assertion. Can you provide a quote from some one who is backing Trump for his alleged racism or sexism?

    Alleged? What planet are you on?

    “will be” indicates speculation….I’d put my house on it though. Come on now, be serious, you can’t for a second be so clueless as to believe that some will be attracted to Trump because they’re the same sort of arsehole?

    We “enable” them by existing, by continuing with our way of life.

    No, you don’t. That’s not even remotely enabling them, that’s what they don’t want. You enable them by playing right into their hands with all the anti-Muslim nonsense. And by going out of your way to pin attacks like Orlando on ISIS or Islamic Jihadists, and then using that to talking about banning Muslims. You do a lot of their work for them. This is not rocket surgery.

     

    Thumb up 0

  56. CM

    Well, most of what you post looks like nothing but a list of left-wing talking points. 

    I’m sure that’s what the reality-based community must look like from there. Any attempt to engage with right-wing talking points can’t simply be an attempt to indicate why they are, they must automatically just be left-wing talking points. Banal.

    So what?

    Rich appears to be labouring under the illusion that there isn’t a good rationale. There is, as explained. Whether you or Rich agree with it is irrelevant.

    No, it appears that something far more insidious is going on. 

    Of course. There MUST be. <eyeroll>

     If the Obama Administration can sever the links between mass shootings and Islamic terrorism

    Why promote links that don’t actually exist, and thereby enable ISIS and other terrorists?

    We already have a prepackaged solution for that (more gun control)! 

    And you have your prepackaged response to any possible discussion about access to weapons – ‘standing on graves’. And Rich has his pre-packaged “listening to Muslims spread their propaganda” narrative to cover anything Obama does without actually having to consider anything else (everything else just follows).

    Thumb up 0

  57. richtaylor365

    It’s not binary to ask these questions.

    But it is binary to assume that criticisms equal hate, your banality notwithstanding.

    You’re practically foaming at the mouth

    Foaming at the mouth, leg humping, cock sucking, have you ever had an original thought? Surprise us.

    By promoting what Beckel says as some sort of truth

    He knows him better then you do. When one of Obama’s most zealous adherents cops to his blindness when it comes to identifying radical Islam, a certain credibility exists, your denials, due to past denials, lack same credibility.

    Not sure where you get the ‘racist’ from

    It is the same lazy fall back you guys use when Obama is criticized.

    No, the hate comes through strongly in the language you use and the fact that you seem to think that every single thing about him his wrong

    More binary, I see. Criticisms must be labeled ODS, you are a one trick pony.

    You and others just go way over the top and undermine yourselves because it starts to come across as unhinged

    Coming from a true believer like yourself, I suspect most criticisms would be labeled as unhinged by you.

    , other the fact that you want it to be true

    No, I’d rather Obama put away his prejudices, recognize radical Islam for what it is, pull his head out of the sand, and start taking the problem seriously. So far he has minimized the “Jee Vee team” as contained, with nothing to worry about here on the home front. And when Radical Jihad does occur, make it about gun violence or call it work place violence, deflect and divert, that is the Obama way.

    Your Investor’s Business Daily editorial (is where you go for this expert analysis?)

    You should read IBD, a lot of smart people over there.

    if what you provide isn’t enough to make sufficient difference

    Sure, there is always risks, but a stronger president might have made a different call;

    Obama was handed a unique opportunity in history to be the sort of inspirational and transformative figure Ronald Reagan was for Eastern Europe before the Berlin Wall fell. All he had to do was say and do the right things to denounce the illegitimate Iranian government and stand with the people in the street.

    President Barack Obama not only ignored the massive 2009 uprising in Iran known as “the Green Revolution,” he ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to refrain from offering the movement any assistance.

    Given Iran’s leading role as the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, it’s implication of countless American deaths in Iraq, it’s avowed threat to our most trusted ally in the region, and the de stabilizing effect it has has on all of it’s ME neighbors, would not this be the place to show some stones and support the freedom fighters? You assume that his decision to stand down was based on some soul searching, but his MO has always been to do nothing, to lead from behind and re act after the fact.

     it’s not as simplistic as you like to keep making out on all your argument

    What was “simplistic” was him placing allegiance in his campaign promise to get us out of Iraq pronto, regardless of the blood and treasure investment already made. Remember Biden saying that Iraq was going to be this administration’s greatest foreign policy achievement? Obama made sure that would never happen by bugging out at the earliest opportunity.

    You mean the polls which show Obama’s job approval hitting record levels

    No, I mean the polling shows Trump killing Clinton when it come to fighting Isis and keeping American’s safe in the face of radical Islam.

    What planet are you on?

    This one, now quit being a puss, man up, and answer the damn question.

     you can’t for a second be so clueless as to believe that some will be attracted to Trump because they’re the same sort of arsehole?

    The reasons I think Trump is popular with many has been spelled several times in other posts I have written, but nothing to do with “aresholes”.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  58. CM

    No, I mean the polling shows Trump killing Clinton when it come to fighting Isis and keeping American’s safe in the face of radical Islam.

    The poll, which was mostly conducted before the Orlando terror attack, also asked voters on their view of the candidates’ ability to manage terrorism and national security. Clinton received the edge on this issue, with 50% saying she would do a better job than Trump at 43%.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/cbs-national-poll-clinton-trump/

    Thumb up 0

  59. richtaylor365

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/192104/trump-leads-clinton-top-ranking-economic-issues.aspx

    Americans’ Preference for Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton to Handle Each of Top Five Election Issues
    Regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would better handle each of the following issues.
    High importance to vote^ Prefer Trump on issue Prefer Clinton on issue Advantage
    % % %
    The economy 92 53 43 Trump +10
    Employment and jobs 89 52 45 Trump +7
    Terrorism and national security 87 50 46 Trump +4
    Education 86 35 61 Clinton +26
    Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act 83 40 56 Clinton +16
    ^ Percentage saying the candidates’ positions on the issue will be extremely/very important issue to influencing their vote for president
    GALLUP, MAY 18-22, 2016

    Thumb up 0

  60. AlexInCT

    Rich, the statistic that always baffles me is the one on education. I think the problem is people have bought into the democrat fiction that the problem with education is lack of funding instead of the truth which is that the left has destroyed it by basicaly not just dumbing it down, but creating the lie that everyone is equally capable.

    After the left has owned education for close to 5 decades, with the outrageous amounts of money poured into it – especailly in the most poorly performing areas – doing nothing to make a difference, you would think people would wise up.

    Then again, maybe I the response was actually by people that want more free shit and figure Hillary would give them free education or something. Of course, smart people immediately figure out that in so few instances that they can be dismissed as statistical noise, there is no free shit, and that free shit usually means piss poor shit, but morons that think collectivism is cool because others now foot the bill for them, probably don’t give a flying fuck.

    Thumb up 0

  61. richtaylor365

    Rich, the statistic that always baffles me is the one on education. I think the problem is people have bought into the democrat fiction that the problem with education is lack of funding instead of the truth which is that the left has destroyed it by basicaly not just dumbing it down, but creating the lie that everyone is equally capable.

    True Dat !!!!

    Is there any other industry in our free market capitalist system that is profoundly anti capitalistic? Inefficient business models are meant to be destroyed, eaten up by a competitor  that provides more value to the customer, not in education. That sacred cow is the domain of the left. Protected by the unions and run by over payed administrators, they know what side their bread is buttered on and will fight for every dollar. Accountability and school choice, these are the enemies. you want better results, throw more money at it.

    Thumb up 0

  62. AlexInCT

    Accountability and school choice, these are the enemies. you want better results, throw more money at it.

    Because that has so far worked out so well! I know, I you were being sarcastic too. Education in this country is failing for the same reason that society at large is: we want to pretend everyone is equally endowed and that all, regarless of what they put in or can contribute, should have the same results (the everyone gets a trophy culture). Collectivism’s twisted outlook on the assertion that all men are equal and we all should be free to pursue happyness.

     

    Thumb up 0

  63. Iconoclast

    Wow Rich, that just looks like a list of right-wing talking points.

    I’m sure that’s what the reality-based community must look like from there.

    Any attempt to engage with right-wing talking points can’t simply be an attempt to indicate why they are, they must automatically just be left-wing talking points. Banal.

    Not at all surprising that the point sailed right over your head, said point being that it’s easy, and lazy, to dismiss an opponent’s arguments as “talking points”.  Even if they are “talking points”, it doesn’t mean they aren’t true or valid.

    Besides, I didn’t even say that your specific response to Rich’s alleged “talking points” were themselves talking points.  I said that most of what you post looks like nothing but talking points, and you unduly flatter yourself by claiming to be a member of the “reality-based community”.  You should learn to read and comprehend, some time.

    And dismissal ain’t “engagement”.

    Rich appears to be labouring under the illusion that there isn’t a good rationale. There is, as explained. Whether you or Rich agree with it is irrelevant.

    And you appear to be laboring under the illusion that the provided “rationale” is “good”, or worth a shit at any level.  Like I keep saying, the fact that it ain’t getting shit for results pretty much proves how worthless it is as a “rationale”.  Has nothing to do with Rich’s or my disagreement, but the fact that ISIS is still a threat that hasn’t been diminished in any meaningful way.

    Of course. There MUST be. <eyeroll>

    I didn’t say, “there MUST be”, you twit.  I simply said it LOOKS LIKE there is.  And it does, your idiotic eye rolls notwithstanding.

    Why promote links that don’t actually exist….?

    Why pretend there are no links when there clearly are?  ISIS DID call for lone wolf attacks, and the Orlando shooter DID pledge allegiance to ISIS while carrying out his lone wolf attack.  That that ain’t enough for your precious, bad-ass self is irrelevant.

    …and thereby enable ISIS and other terrorists?

    You seem to be under the illusion that fighting an enemy “enables” them, when, by all appearances, Obama’s appeasement strategy is what truly enables them.

    And you have your prepackaged response to any possible discussion about access to weapons – ‘standing on graves’.

    Which is not the same thing as taking away my right to protect myself, troll.  That you equate the two at any level speaks volumes, none of it good.

     

    Thumb up 1