![[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-x7_mwi5EYyZJxpzNqsvkYATDseYTHIovP09YKrIctspB17DY_5s2AeackCCaZqX14NV-rcs5S81-anUoEkQcrbMqc9hATVpw0uU3hH1tyIbe0iq0Jfe5iTwGlJaoODZXAOt_Kg/s1600/freedomtowernight_edited.jpg)
No. But. Yes.
Rick, it would be more genuine of you if you just came out and said that right-wingers' support of the Second Amendment caused this. Your "whiles", "ors" and "coulds" wouldn't sound so incredibly dishonest and ridiculous, either.
Congratulations on garnering attention by way of this incredibly unfortunate and misguided opinion of yours.
Congratulations on garnering attention by way of this incredibly unfortunate and misguided opinion of yours.
Labels: Liberal Lunacy
posted by Robert at 1:06 PM
24 Comments:
He's not the only one. Kos had a blogger resign over this, because Mark did a retweet over the weekend, blaming conservativies and republicans over this. Actually liberals have been blaming republicans and conservatives for the Binghamton shooting as well.
I find this in very poor taste.
Unless, of course, Robert, I honestly didn't believe that.
Nice post, though. One of your better.
.
Nice try, Rick. This is a recurring theme with you. And you show no signs of wising up.
So, in the face of evidence to the contrary, you ignore it?
Typical.
.
Evidence to the contrary?
Please Rick you UPDATED the post to include Obama/Hitler comparisons to somehow support your argument. Right, like the left never compared Bush to Hitler.
You recanted on post on mid March that was inflammatory; yet, you do it again two weeks later.
And you expect us to believe you are being sincere?
You could've done a post about gun control; about how maybe you don't agree with gun possession but understand those who want guns for protection. About stricter laws, and controls on background checks and what people should be able to buy.
Heck, you could've even done the post on the fact that this all started b/c psycho's mom evicted him from the house b/c his dog pissed on the floor and when he wouldn't leave she called the police.
Yet you chose to do a repeat of the post you previously recanted.
LV: Do the words "You know, while it would be terribly unfair to characterize Poplawski's actions as a product of conservative ideology..." mean nothing to you? Do I have to put them in all caps in order for them to break through your bias against me and what I write at SFDB?
Fact of the matter is that this guy probably WOULD have felt right at home at an NRA convention or listening to Glenn Beck or reading the things they write at babalu. Is everyone who visits those sites or watches those programs or attends those conventions Republicans, let alone lunatics? No.
You're making the jump, LV. Not me.
And that's fairly telling in and of itself.
.
Rick,
If you would have mentioned what you had said in that first paragraph above and left it at that, or perhaps explain why assault weapons should be banned, or why background checks are so important...then we would have had a reasonable and respectful conversation about the issue at hand. Instead, you had to throw in those deranged readers at Babalu, the NRA, you know...the easy targets of the left...as if they are a root cause of this massacre. As one of your own commenters put it, your post was all about "scoring cheap political points", not about reasonable discourse. That's why I'm not buying your explanation here. It's simply not consistent with your actions.
Rick...perhaps explain why assault weapons should be banned, or why background checks are so important...
That might be a reasonable demand - if Rick had actually called for any of those things in the post you reference. But he didn't.
Your post is pure, unadulterated, straw-man. Wish I could say I was surprised.
C.L.J.,
Why don't you think Rick called for any of those things to be discussed? Why do you think Rick instead chose to bash the NRA and other "right-wing nut cases" and offer them up as a lame attempt at a root cause for that awful incident in Pittsburgh? I already answered it, but here it is again: Rick prefers to bash the usual right-wing targets over the head in a cheap attempt to score political points (wish I had come up with that one first) instead of honestly rationalizing what led to that horrific incident in Pittsburgh. That, sir, is a straw man argument. I'm just pointing out the obvious ridiculousness and shallowness of it. In what world, besides yours, is my counter-argument against using straw men a straw man in itself?
I know you and I probably disagree on pretty much everything, but that doesn't mean that you have to suspend rational thought in order to agree with Rick, or more importantly for you, to take shots at conservatives.
If you can't see my main point for what it is, then I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to convince you.
Do I have to put them in all caps in order for them to break through your bias against me and what I write at SFDB?
Bias? I'm not biased against you or SFDB. I read what you write and try to logically have a conversation of differing points with you, mostly to no avail. You however, are biased. At least when I criticize the left, I try to find rational arguments that validate my position.
However, how can your "You know, while it would be terribly unfair to characterize Poplawski's actions as a product of conservative ideology..." mean nothing to you? mean anything to me, when a) you haven't recanted this post as you did in the previous one b) after recanting in the previous post and recognizing it was a bad idea, you go do it again (guess that it wasn't a bad idea after all) and c) like I said before, you keep updating the post with even more on the links between GOP anti Obama rhetoric and the tragedy at Pittsburgh?
Making a jump? Rick, making a jump would be for me to accuse you of laughing and snickering while you write the post or the comments here at 26th. I'm not making any jumps.
You are the one that is fanning the fire of making a jump with your post. You offer no real debate, just an opportunity for some right wing bashing, as Robert says.
Robert: I can't help that the NRA is seen by many as a conservative organization and that they donate to a lot of Republican campaigns. I can't help that Glenn Beck is listened to by a lot of Republicans. And I certainly can't help that what this nutjob in Pittsburgh supposedly said bears a heckuva lot of resemblance to both Beck and the NRA and what babalu commenters and some contributors say almost every day. That is totally beyond my control.
If you are uncomfortable with that post, I suggest that you take a real close look at what is being communicated by people in your own political party and on their talk shows and on your blog, instead of what is NOT being said by me.
And LV, I haven't recanted because there is nothing to recant. If I took back things I wrote every time someone had their own personal problem with it, I would be doing nothing else.
Lastly, Robert, I wish that you would stop calling all liberals "traitors and haters of the US." Oh, you didn't say what I put in quotes...jeez....I would feel bad but instead I guess I'll just call us "even."
"Rational discussion?" Pfft. As if.
.
"Pfft. As if."
You crack me up, Ricky-boy. I can just see you contorting your face to make that sound. So much angst and anger. You just... you just... you just have to say "pfft!"
What you lack in substance, Ricky-boy, you more than make up for it in comedic value. Just imagine how funny you could really be if that was your intention. Then again, what makes you funny is the fact that you have no idea how funny you really are.
On second thought, just keep doing what you're doing. Everyone, even conservatives, need a laugh every once in a while.
Rick,
When you stop trying to connect (read: assign blame) the murders to the NRA, Glenn Beck, Babalu, right-wing nut cases and/or any other conservative bogeyman you can conjure up, then I'll stop criticizing these type of posts.
I know what's being communicated by conservatives/libertarians such as Glenn Beck and many others, and it sure as hell ain't killing people with guns or any other instrument, despite what you may or may not think about the 2nd Amendment.
Imagine if I would have done what Michael Savage did in tying the Oakland police murders to Democrat politicians such as Barbara Lee and Nancy Pelosi for their supposed weak stance on police being able to protect themselves when confronting a suspect. Your reaction would have been even more indignant than mine, and with good reason. Please think about this for a second and try to understand, if at all possible, why I and others concluded that you were connecting conservatives to the Pittsburgh murders.
Why don't you think Rick called for any of those things to be discussed?
Because that wasn't the point he was making.
One of the reasons we HAVE the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm. And here you have someone fighting to maintain this right skewering its heart by attacking someone with his firearms.
I support the 2nd amendment: but I don't support people violating the law, and that's what the pinhead did. He wasn't upholding fine and noble principles: he wanted to make sure that he had the means to murder his fellow citizens. And when his twisted mind thought he was going to lose that opportunity, he cut loose.
The thing is, Robert, that you're attacking the wrong guy. You're not attacking the whacko who murdered three people who were sworn to protect and defend us.
And that's what's wrong with you and people in your political circles.
Robert:
Don't discourage Ricky-boy, we all want him to have another "pfft" moment. Come on Ricky, give us another "pfft."
No C.L., the point Rick was making was that "wacko conservatives" who listen to Glenn Beck, read Babalu Blog and are members of the NRA are somehow prone to either doing this type of thing or encouraging someone to do such an act. I mean, what on God's green earth do the above groups have to do with a sicko in Pittsburgh killing police officers?
If you don't like my heavy criticism of Rick's post for drawing more attention to the beliefs and words of innocent people instead of the sick, demented guy who pulled the trigger, so be it. But please stop telling me what's "wrong" with me and those who think like me, because it's obvious you have absolutely no clue what I believe.
Rick's post is the perfect example of why he's the poster boy for unbridled stupidity:
"Murder is not a right. But owning a gun is, according to virtually all conservatives."
The right to bear arms is granted to the citizens of the United States by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. That right was upheld by the Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia. 'Conservatives' don't confer that right (or any other right) to anybody. The Constitution does. You might want to read it. It may be available in large print block letters with pretty pictures.
The best thing about his post is that he actually wrote it thinking he's a pretty sharp guy. Funny stuff. And here's another Rick howler:
"The right also has the market on Obama Derangement Syndrome. Right? No one knows what political affiliation this guy held, but he sure sounded like those that I quoted or posted a video of."
I guess Ricky Boy missed all the 'Bush=Hitler,' 'Bush the baby-killer,' and 'Bush assassination' fantasies put out by his buds for the eight years of Bush's presidency. Derangement syndrome indeed.
Rick, stick to your blogging tips and your picture posting. You're way out of your league when you actually have to think.
Alberto: Go curl up in a bail and wail "God help us" a few more times.
Manliness: Fail.
George: Dude, I worry about you. Obama is the Democrat's Hitler? Don't go all Jim Adkisson on us, brother. Get some help.
.
No, Robert, the point I was making was that people like the shooter in Pittsburgh happen to believe the things that these groups and people talk about. And they do. Beck talks about Obama taking away guns along with the NRA and babalu commenters and contributors are always alleging some type of Marxist, Socialist or Communist plot is going on to take away our rights. Hell, Gomez was saying that the new cigarette tax was evidence of that.
I already said in this comment thread that I had no idea what political affiliation he held and LV clarified that for us.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
.
Rick = Roger DeBris.
Curl up in a ball Ricky-boy? Come on, where's that manly "pfft?" Everyone knows real men go "pfft!"
Don't disappoint us Ricky.
Hey, de la Cruz: Okay, go tell Val.
God help us!
.
Ricky, your "pffts" are much more manlier than Val's. I guess it's the manly way you write your "pffts" that sets you apart.
Keep It going Ricky, go google babalu some more. There really isn't much to watch on tv tonight and I'm done watching the episodes of South Park I had Tivo'd.
Rick,
The more you explain yourself, the worse you sound. Give it up already. There was NO tie whatsoever between the tragic incident and all those things you mentioned. None. Nada. Zero. Forget about it. Only someone like you would even attempt to draw any kind of parallel, no matter how distant or far-fetched.
This comment thread is now closed.
<< Home