They hate you, they REALLY hate you

« Obama and the DREAM ActThe Left’s goals (hint: they aren’t focused on peoples’ well-being) »

They hate you, they REALLY hate you

Bookworm on Jun 26 2011 at 9:00 pm | Filed under: Media matters

Ed Driscoll gathers compelling evidence showing that, when you think the New York media hates you, you’re right.

Be Sociable, Share!

Email This Post To A Friend

90 Responses to “They hate you, they REALLY hate you”

on 26 Jun 2011 at 9:59 pm 1SADIE

The paper of record is a 33 1/3 and as such is an old, useless and outdated dinosaur.

A Sadie story:

My grandmother was born in 1901. The luxury of toilet paper had not yet reached Jerusalem by the time she would have used it. It was with this information, I asked the obvious, “Well, what did you use”. Nana simply started to giggle hilariously and explained to me that there was the old joke, when someone asked what was news, the answer went, “I’ll bend over and you can read it”.

110 years later – nothing has changed unless the NYT thinks it can make itself useful by putting itself on a roll.
on 26 Jun 2011 at 10:08 pm 2Ed Driscoll » The View of the World from Pinch Avenue

[...] Welcome Bookworm Room and Power Line readers; John Hinderaker, who notes that Carr is a native of Minnesota, adds a [...]
on 26 Jun 2011 at 10:15 pm 3Charles Martel

Living in Marin, it’s inevitable that I have several friends who still read the New York Times. They are residents of that parallel universe where if one reads the Times, one shows one’s great intellectual chops. Most of them are fairly competent writers and speakers, but not enough to see how badly written the Times is.

Hearing them talk about what they’ve read in the Times is like listening to children discussing an exciting chapter of “Dick and Jane” that was recently featured on PBS.
on 26 Jun 2011 at 10:33 pm 4SADIE

Add this to the list and call it Links and Hijinks.

NYT Deploys Powerful New Weapon of Media Bias:

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/23/nyt-deploys-powerful-new-media-bias-weapon/#ixzz1QS2KNOe7
on 27 Jun 2011 at 4:30 am 5Zachriel

Bookworm: They hate you, they REALLY hate you.

Does this count?

“If Democrats are worried that the public will try to assassinate them like they tried to do with Giffords, they don’t need to be worried. When the time comes, whoever is on the assassination team will be using a .50 caliber sniper rifle, and you won’t have to worry about being wounded in the brain and being comatose in the hospital. With a .50 caliber sniper rifle, you won’t have a head afterwards. Or a torso, even.”

By the way, Carr has apologized.
twitter.com/#!/carr2n
on 27 Jun 2011 at 5:06 am 6Libby

This is the one benefit of Bill Maher’s show – the liberals feel comfortable enough to let the mask slip. You get a good idea of what their conversations are like at work and parties where they feel they’re surrounded by like-minded people. Then again, every time I’ve watched this show I end up discovering another entertainer that hates conservatives, Republicans, and red staters.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 5:29 am 7Danny Lemieux

In Zach’s world of moral equivalence, the comments of a lone blog commentator are analogous to those of a leading journalist of the MSM, as projected on a national media broadcast.

Commenting from the perspective of a moral vacuum, Zach furthermore doesn’t understand what the fuss is about, since the journalist perp in question has tweeted that he’s sorry (he got caught and embarrassed). So, in Zach’s world, “what’s the big deal?”.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 6:08 am 8Zachriel

Danny Lemieux: In Zach{riel}’s world of moral equivalence, the comments of a lone blog commentator are analogous to those of a leading journalist of the MSM, as projected on a national media broadcast.

In fact, Carr has apologized. And yes, an apology does make a difference. By the way, Carr is from Minnesota.

Now, to the question. Does the quote above constitute hate? Did the commenter apologize? How long will the people on this blog continue to allow not-so veiled threats of violence to be posted without criticism?
on 27 Jun 2011 at 6:14 am 9SADIE

Something about the BM show that speaks for itself. Kinda reminds me of a bunch of eight year old boys, who have congregated in the corner of the boy’s bathroom to compare who can fire off the smelliest fart and then blame the stench elsewhere.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 6:18 am 10Danny Lemieux

Some commenters have been around so long on this blog, Zach, that they are like family. We have the luxury of putting their comments into proper perspective. You are still very new to this blog.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 6:50 am 11SADIE

By the way, Carr is from Minnesota.

That’s it? That’s you big contribution to the discussion? Keep in mind, the topic is MSM, including the NYT and a world stage whereby conservative readers and viewers are belittled and held in contempt in a self-righteous smug manner.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 7:21 am 12Zachriel

Danny Lemieux: Some commenters have been around so long on this blog, Zach, that they are like family.

Even worse! So when someone in your family repeatedly and publicly threatens to kill people because of their political views, you ignore them rather than counsel them.

SADIE: Keep in mind, the topic is MSM, including the NYT and a world stage whereby conservative readers and viewers are belittled and held in contempt in a self-righteous smug manner.

Perhaps, but in Carr’s case, he apologized—as he should.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 7:48 am 13SADIE

Perhaps

So glad you expanded on the topic. Can I quote you.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 7:53 am 14Danny Lemieux

Zach, maybe because we know when or when not they are being serious. If he had made a threat against you, that would have been very different, but he has done no such thing.

FYI…this does not in any way imply that I or anybody else always agrees with what he says. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. I certainly do not advocate doing violence against others because of their political views, although I certainly would do violence against people who threaten me with bodily harm, which is pretty much the way that I have interpreted his rants.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 8:24 am 15JKB

So what did this guy apologize for? Saying out loud what he thought?
on 27 Jun 2011 at 8:31 am 16Gringo

Had there been no negative feedback from his “sloping heads” remarks, David Carr would never have apologized. He has used the term on more than one occasion. His “apology” is empty, as his underlying attitude is still one of “sloping heads.” His being from Minnesota is irrelevant: consider the contempt that Garrison Keillor has for “sloping heads.” In fact, David Carr may have more contempt for the “sloping heads” than the average Noo Yawker, to show that he has distanced himself from his origins.

This kerfuffle about Carr’s “sloping heads” remark on the Bill Maher show reminds me of the “bitter clingers” remark of Obama at the San Francisco fund raiser three years ago. Both Carr and Obama were in liberal venues, among friends, as it were, which let their respective guards down. As they were among friends, they to expressed their heartfelt opinions: opinions which they would not have expressed in “mixed company.” In both cases the heartfelt opinions expressed contempt for the knuckle-draggers in Hicksville and/or in flyover country.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 8:41 am 17spiff580

Like clockwork Z points out that he issued the apology. No harm done.
Sorry the world doesn’t work that way. An apology issued under duress does not hold much weight. He apologized because he had to, not because he wanted to or really regretted saying it (well other than he regretted that it revealed to everyone what he really thinks). At least that’s my take.
It’s like a 5-year old issuing an apology under parental direction. Except the 5-year old has an excuse for bad behavior… he/she is 5.
Do you really think Carr has changed his opinion of the great unwashed masses?
I would have more respect for Carr if he would just own up to it and admit he could care less what Middle America thinks. Have the balls to own what you say.
Next we need abc to tell us about the insider, expert and/or friend he knows in the industry to tell us what is “really” going on. Let’s not forget it is settled too.
Like Obama’s MoH of honor gaffe, it’s going to take more than an apology to erase a mistake like that.
As for Y, well I’m afraid pointing out someone else’s bad behavior as justification for yours or someone else’s bad behavior is also a 5-year old tactic as well. Although I do agree with you that was a bit over the top… but a lot of what he says is.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 8:56 am 18JKB

“Like clockwork Z points out that he issued the apology. No harm done.”

This apology strikes me as the same as someone might offer after using the N-word to describe a African-Americans. Perhaps he is sorry he said it. Perhaps he is sorry he thought it. But he did say it and he wasn’t immediately appalled at his words. He didn’t immediately apologize and show embarrassment and shock that he’d hold such attitudes. He appeared, in fact, quite pleased with himself.

So until there is evidence of a change in attitude or at least embarrassment over having such said such a thing, his apology is not accepted.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 8:59 am 19Gringo

Go to the video. Bill Maher is claiming that New Jersey is more “sophisticated” than other states-whatever that means.

David Carr agrees with Bill Maher, with his ” sloping heads” remark about Kansas, Missourah, and the middle of the country.

Carr says, “Did I just say that aloud?”
OMG, I just said in public what I think in private.

Bill Maher then talks about “..as an interviewer you lull the guests revealing themselves. Did I just say that aloud?”

Both David Carr and Bill Maher considered the remark heartfelt- at the time.
The apology is on the line of “I am sorry I offended you.”
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:01 am 20spiff580

Oh I’m sure he is embarrassed about saying it. He’s embarrassed because he has to apologize to the “sloping forehead” people… he has to swallow a bit of his pride for damage control.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:09 am 21Zachriel

Gringo: Had there been no negative feedback from his “sloping heads” remarks, David Carr would never have apologized.

Perhaps. Nevertheless, an apology still helps set what are appropriate bounds for public discourse. That’s why you call out people who make such statements, or worse, people who make tacit threats. Carr’s apology seemed sincere enough, and came the same day, and then repeated several times.

Carr2n: “But my Mpls. brothers are smacking me down. hard. all deserved.”
Carr2n: “your are right to club me. live tv will get away from you and you will say some stupid stuff. which I did.”
Carr2n: “to all of America, at least the middle place that I come from, I apologize for saying something so, so dumb on Bill Maher last night.”
Carr2n: “I hate being the guy who condescends, however accidently, to those pple that make America cool and fun.”
Carr2n: “Stuck in the naughty corner for the foreseeable future.”

Danny Lemieux: maybe because we know when or when not they are being serious.

We gave the commenter plenty of time and opportunity to clarify their remarks concerning personally executing as many Leftists as possible. His clarifications only revealed an even more extreme view. Today, well, nevertheless, we asked him again to clarify his views.

The key to this discussion is that the molehill of calling people names then apologizing, while ignoring the mountain of a not-so veiled threat of a policy of political assassination.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:23 am 22Charles Martel

C’mon, guys! It’s Zach who’s huffing and puffing and calling for us to tar and feather Ymarsakar.

For God’s sake, our Hamas-defending mascot has about as much moral agency as a granite countertop. Why even respond to him?
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:24 am 23Ymarsakar

I don’t think Z understood more than 10% of what that comment he quoted from me meant. It’s not like he can produce an analysis of it, thus I predict he ignorant of critical points and thus until he corrects that ignorance, he’s in the void for the moment.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:24 am 24JKB

@Z - Carr’s apology seemed sincere enough,…

That is not a sincere apology. If you really believe it is, you probably believe Mitt Romney is sincere.

It’s interesting, Ann Althouse highlighed Carr’s crackhead past. He apparently wrote book or something about it. That apology Z lays out is a junkie’s “not my fault” apology. If you’ve experience with junkies and alcoholics, you’ll recognize it.

Z, had he said something such as the ‘[N-word]s up in Harlem’, would that apology be acceptable? No, it wouldn’t because it shows no contrition or remorse, except at being called out for the remark.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:29 am 25SADIE

We gave the commenter plenty of time and opportunity to clarify …..

Is that a veiled threat?
Are you demanding an answer?
Better yet, how many questions have gone unanswered by the z-group?

Sometimes one just don’t dignify a question with an answer.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:29 am 26spiff580

Wow, all of sudden this thread has been become about some anonymous commenter. Nice try changing the subject though. One has to consider the source Z.

As for Carr, his “apology” sounds just as snarky and smart-alecky as his original comment.

And I am sorry, being from Minnesota doesn’t make it ok. That’s another adolescent tactic. “Yeah, I am one of you guys man… you get me right.” Or sounds a lot like… “I have a lot of (insert ethnic/racial group) friends.”

Like I said, he should just own it.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:35 am 27SADIE

Why even respond to him?

You know my tennis game is on hold for a few more months – the best I can do at the moment is swat at flies with my fingers.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:37 am 28Ymarsakar

One has to have a spine to stick by their words.

Fortunately, the Left has a certain lack of spine, probably why they allied with Islamic jihadists. At least the jihadists have proven they will do what they say they will do to people. A Leftist would just say “wouldn’t it be nice if someone assassinated Bush the monkey and puppet”. Will someone rid me of this turbulent priest! Maybe he actually said pestilent, not sure.

Maybe Z thinks his tactic of trying to pressure me or the other readers here, will work because it would work against him and Leftists. Why does he think that? Maybe you should ask him. Certainly he hasn’t told any of you what his real issue is at the moment. He’s still hidings things from you, like the real reason he doesn’t like what I wrote. In fact, has he given you any valid reason for why he’s upset to begin with? I haven’t seen any. The same was true back in the past, when he quoted my discussion with Mike Devx on the rise of the criminal wave in Britain. Z never said what was wrong with my line. That’s because Z cannot explain certain things when it threatens to unmask the truth.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:39 am 29Ymarsakar

Unlike Z, I don’t spend all my time on the internet reading and making up propaganda for Obama. I have other things I need to do, or would like to do. Thus “plenty of time” is perhaps only viable in the Z universe. Has nothing to do with me.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:51 am 30Ymarsakar

So until there is evidence of a change in attitude or at least embarrassment over having such said such a thing, his apology is not accepted.

I would word it as he has no right to make an apology. To earn such a right, one must do something to atone, not just mouth whatever words are socially expedient: words like a sociopath uses to hide amongst the sheep (BTK killer).

We gave the commenter plenty of time and opportunity to clarify their remarks concerning personally executing as many Leftists as possible.

What I’m still amazed at is the fact that Z considers basically quoting somebody else, the same as asking for clarification. It’s like Z expects you to read his Z waves over the net and understand his intention, without Z actually writing it down in words.

The Left are dumb for a reason when they are amongst their social circle, but at least their excuse has to be that they read the social waves that was fit only for a minority of Americans (the Leftist alliance). I’ve never seen or talked to a Leftist that believed he could make himself understood without using social gestures and verbal words. Z is still a unique enigma in that remark.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:51 am 31Zachriel

Ymarsakar: If Democrats are worried that the public will try to assassinate them like they tried to do with Giffords, they don’t need to be worried. When the time comes, whoever is on the assassination team will be using a .50 caliber sniper rifle, and you won’t have to worry about being wounded in the brain and being comatose in the hospital. With a .50 caliber sniper rifle, you won’t have a head afterwards. Or a torso, even.

Ymarsakar: I don’t think Z understood more than 10% of what that comment he quoted from me meant.

The comment is quite clear, and the mention of Giffords only emphasizes the point.

JKR: That is not a sincere apology.

Carr apologized within hours. His tweets read sincere, but feel free to reject it. Nevertheless, sincere or not, it means his comments are not acceptable discourse within those able to influence his public statements.

JKR: Z, had he said something such as the ‘[N-word]s up in Harlem’, would that apology be acceptable?

It would be a necessary first step.

Zachriel: We gave the commenter plenty of time and opportunity to clarify

SADIE: Is that a veiled threat?

No. A simple statement that the commenter had plenty of time to clarify their remarks, if they had been misconstrued. We know they were read as he merely amplified his original comments about executing millions of Leftists, and now assassinating Democrats.

SADIE: Are you demanding an answer?

Not at all. Why should you speak up for Leftists when you are not a Leftist?
on 27 Jun 2011 at 10:14 am 32Danny Lemieux

To summarize the points about Carr’s apology: it isn’t what he said or whether or not he issued an “apology” that is the issue: the issue is what that comment revealed about Carr himself, his character and prejudices.

No apology can erase what that comment said about Carr’s character (a fuzzy concept to some people, I understand).
on 27 Jun 2011 at 10:15 am 33Danny Lemieux

Zach, so…given Ymarsaker’s quote, who do you think he was referring to in terms of his “assassination team” reference?
on 27 Jun 2011 at 10:16 am 34Ymarsakar

If Obama apologizes for having his ATF supply arms to mass murderers, psychopaths, drug dealers, and rapists in Mexico, we should forgive him right. We should be courteous and gracious and accept his apology on behalf of the victims… right?
on 27 Jun 2011 at 10:22 am 35Gringo

In response to Charles Martel/Maccabeus’s #22 about the Z-team’s remarks about Hamas, I used the Wayback Machine, and here add some comments of my own.

Hamas Charter:
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
Z-team response: Pretty typical boilerplate for a party to a conflict.

My response:
That isn’t boilerplate, that is a mission statement. Do you consider the Ten Commandments to be boilerplate? Get it through your heads: Hamas is serious.

If this is “typical boilerplate for a party to a conflict,” then one would find emanating from the Israeli Government an equivalent statement: that Palestinians should be driven out of Gaza and the West Bank. On the contrary, the Israeli government talks about two-state solution. For some odd reason, the Israelis want to be assured that the other parties in the negotiation recognize their right to exist and are willing to live in peace with a two state solution, once it is in place. I refer you to the Hamas Charter.

Hamas Charter:
“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

Z-team response: Yes, and Israel lays claim to the West Bank based on a belief that God promised it to them. Again, each side starts from the most extreme position.

My response:
There is a difference between policy and beliefs of outliers. Hamas policy is that “the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf.” Period. Israel policy has been the two-state solution.

This misrepresentation shows that the Z-team is acting as this case as Hamas apologists, not as “neutral observers.” Or as blatant ignoramuses who don’t know their coccyx from their ulna, who believe the main difference between Hebron,Kentucky and Hebron on the West Bank has to do with the availability of McDonald’s franchises.

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2011/05/24/israel-is-whats-right-with-the-middle-east/#comment-123212
on 27 Jun 2011 at 10:25 am 36Gringo

Danny Lemiux
To summarize the points about Carr’s apology: it isn’t what he said or whether or not he issued an “apology” that is the issue: the issue is what that comment revealed about Carr himself, his character and prejudices.
No apology can erase what that comment said about Carr’s character (a fuzzy concept to some people, I understand).

That sums it up pretty well. Though I would say it is not so much about his character- which has to do with his conduct- but about his beliefs/ prejudices.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 10:25 am 37Charles Martel

Gringo, I think you pretty well nailed Zach’s hypocrisy. Most here are amused by a wolf calling for a boycott of lamb chops.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 10:48 am 38Zachriel

Danny Lemieux: To summarize the points about Carr’s apology: it isn’t what he said or whether or not he issued an “apology” that is the issue: the issue is what that comment revealed about Carr himself, his character and prejudices.

The apology doesn’t erase his previous comments, but is certainy part of that character assessment.

Danny Lemieux: given Ymarsaker’s quote, who do you think he was referring to in terms of his “assassination team” reference?

As he has volunteered to personallly executive Leftists, there is little doubt as to his intentions. By seeing Leftists and Democrats as blood-enemies, he justifies any manner of violence. But you are not a Leftist, so there is no reason for you to speak out.

Charles Martel: That isn’t boilerplate, that is a mission statement.

Hamas has stated they are now open to a two-state solution.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 10:50 am 39Charles Martel

“Hamas has stated they [sic] are now open to a two-state solution.”

Prove it.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 11:09 am 40Charles Martel

Hey, anybody notice Zach’s abysmal spelling and syntax in his latest boilerplates? Is it possible that we’ve been assigned the second string today?

Come back, Perfesser Zach, come back! Don’t send us your semi-literate acolytes, please!
on 27 Jun 2011 at 11:13 am 41Zachriel

Charles Martel: Prove it.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-vows-to-honor-palestinian-referendum-on-peace-with-israel-1.328234
on 27 Jun 2011 at 11:19 am 42pst314

“In fact, Carr has apologized.”
Not much of an apology–completely insincere and therefore it counts for nothing.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 11:22 am 43pst314

Zach, why would you put any credence in what Hamas says?
on 27 Jun 2011 at 11:29 am 44MacG

Sadie did you really write the “BM Show” and miss the pun? , funny I was just talking ot my Doctor about those the other day…
on 27 Jun 2011 at 11:57 am 45Zachriel

pst314: Not much of an apology–completely insincere and therefore it counts for nothing.

Of course it counts for something. As we mentioned above, it helps set the limits for acceptable discourse. In this case, though, he immediately apologized.

pst314: why would you put any credence in what Hamas says?

There are more radical views within Hamas, but it makes political sense for them to find some sort of accomodation.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:05 pm 46Charles Martel

Zach, you are either one of the most naive people I’ve ever encountered on a blog site or else the most willfully obtuse. (I think it’s the latter.)

But aside from your amorality, you reading comprehension skills are abysmal. Let’s see:

“We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees,” Haniyeh said, referring to the year of Middle East war in which Israel captured East Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories. (<–A lie—there were no “Palestinian territories” in 1967. There were lands that belonged to Jordan and Syria.)

Could you tell me which part of that statement acknowledges the right of Israel to exist? The only reference to any state in the area is to a Palestine. It says nothing about honoring the borders with or existence of the state on the other side of the 1967 lines.

Zach, your dishonesty and lack of intellectual skills is why so many people are coming over to our side. Please keep trolling away—if you are the best the left can muster, and visitors here see it, the future looks bright for folks like us.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:10 pm 47Danny Lemieux

Zach, not to put words in Ymarsaker’s mouth, but everytime he has spoken about Leftists getting killed, it was from the context of people with whom the collaborated doing the killing (Palestinians, Jihadis and other enemies of the U.S.). His position has been that Lefties always disavow awareness that those with whom they would partner are also those that would be the first to kill them (Kind of like “Gays for Palestine”).

So, that’s why I am asking you to give us the language where Ymarsaker specifically advocates the killing of Lefties. The quotes you have given so far don’t do that.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:21 pm 48Zachriel

Charles Martel: Could you tell me which part of that statement acknowledges the right of Israel to exist?

The part that says they will accept a peace deal with Israel.

Danny Lemieux: His position has been that Lefties always disavow awareness that those with whom they would partner are also those that would be the first to kill them (Kind of like “Gays for Palestine”).

Um, no.

Ymarsakar: I describe this simply to allow people to understand that when I talk about killing 80% of Leftists enabling criminal behavior in Britain, I’m not talking about some cold and efficient outsourcing of the execution. I’m talking about personally overseeing and doing the deed myself, for as many as I can before my arms fall off from the exhaustion.

He wants to personally oversee the job himself.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:21 pm 49Ymarsakar

Martel, Obama is their best, so far. And by those lights, we see what we are really up against. For those living under a rock the last 3 years, they can just take a look at the disaster called America for a look see.

The Left considers many things a “necessary first step” like “negotiations with preconditions with Iran” or “withdrawal of all US troops before considering what US strategy in Iraq should be, a necessary ‘first step’”. Then there’s the whole “war is the last resort thing”. But I get the sense, from their historical and current behavior, that the Left doesn’t really give a damn about what they say they do. If negotiations and pre-conditions were supposed to be a necessary first step before considering conflict, then what the Hell Is Libya called? A war by neocons when in fact the neocons would have countenanced calm and deliberate analysis to replace the Left’s lust and rush to war? Let’s continue on to “war is the last resort”. If war is the last resort, why did the Left use it as the first resort in Sudan, Mogadishu, Serbia, certain American families that they wanted to assassinate and blow up, and various other times and places where they allied with foreign powers like the Soviet Union to render aid to the Nazis and other allies of the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics. If war is the last resort, does that mean the Left know that when you act like them and use war as the first resort, things tend to blow up? Maybe it’s because the Left gets tired of war and doesn’t have the stomach for it, that they put it as the last resort. Where as others place war as the last resort because they are fully cognizant of the costs and risks associated with such. Could be. Given how the Left, could very well be.

Martel, hah. At least they are semi-literate. Have you seen the havoc completely illiterate barbarians can cause on a technic civilization? That’s not even including on dolphin and ant civilizations. Global Warming wouldn’t wipe them out, but illiterate barbarians can and will.

I see that Z is still basking in his ignorance and unable to tell any of us just what exactly is his beef/problem/analysis/conclusion concerning what he keeps copying and pasting from my repertoire. This is getting stale if he doesn’t offer us any new material to entertain ourselves with.

Z assumes much but knows little, if anything. If I was Obama, there would be plenty of things I would be implying about my opponents with my little word plays and middle finger chin strokes. But I’m not Obama. I’m rather direct, in fact. It’s not like I’m all that hesitant about advocating for violence if I truly believed it was justified. Yet Z can find no specific examples nor can he give any reasons to back his proclamations up. Like most Leftists, Z makes the rules up as he goes. This time it’s “necessary first step” concerning apologies. Next time… well, who knows what they’ll make up as they go, when next time comes around. Maybe it’ll be a necessary first step for you to get non-voluntary euthanasia…. shrugs.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:27 pm 50Ymarsakar

He wants to personally oversee the job himself.

When it comes to killing people, the job is best done by yourself. If I advocate killing anyone, it’s not indirectly, sitting behind a desk, or pressing buttons, or giving orders for somebody else to do the dirty work.

I think people here understand the distinction. Anyone can kill hundreds of thousands of people… you just need helpers. People willing to “follow orders”, wherever it leads. This is a serious concern, that justifies serious consideration. It’s not a time for clown play, Z. I know you like to beclown yourself from time to time, but this is too serious a topic for you to play around with. Let your elders judge and take care of these issues beyond your ken.
A person that advocates the death of anyone, is simply a coward if he isn’t willing to do the deed himself. Never give an order you aren’t willing to carry out yourself.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:32 pm 51Zachriel

Ymarsakar: A person that advocates the death of anyone, is simply a coward if he isn’t willing to do the deed himself.
The question is whether, given the opportunity, you would execute 80% of Leftists in Britain.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:35 pm 52Ymarsakar

What kind of opportunity are you talking about?

I’m not a British citizen, so if you’re living in Britain and you’re worried, what reason would you be worried over…
on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:41 pm 53Charles Martel

Zach, I personally would settle for 78%.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:48 pm 54SADIE

Sadie did you really write the “BM Show” and miss the pun? , funny I was just talking to my Doctor about those the other day…

MacG – are you kidding. I try never to miss a pun chance. Yep, it was purposeful and you caught it. Rumor has it, there’s a spin off from the BM Show. So far, the script is spotty (that’s another pun). There is a working title – it’s called The Zzzz’s. The current problem with the script is that it puts you to sleep while fighting off an urge to defecate.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 1:35 pm 55Ymarsakar

Explain this BM to me Sadie…

Is it the new nuclear weapon?
on 27 Jun 2011 at 1:48 pm 56DL Sly

Sorry, Mr. Martel, if Ymar promises 80%, I’m gonna haf’ta hold him to it. No slackin’ allowed. heh And, no, Ymar, you can’t get away with “But my arms fell off in exhaustion!” as an excuse. *snicker* 0>;~}
on 27 Jun 2011 at 2:01 pm 57SADIE

Nah…it’s a dud like Bill Maher and his buddies are duds (see: #9 for the hot air report).

Like a fart in a windstorm, they’re barely a blip on the radar.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 2:22 pm 58Gringo

Z-team #38
Quotes “Charles Martel” [sic]: That isn’t boilerplate, that is a mission statement.
Z-Team replies : Hamas has stated they are now open to a two-state solution.

Go to the link the Z-Team provides in #41.

Hamas from link: We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees,” Haniyeh said, referring to the year of Middle East war in which Israel captured East Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories.

As Hamas & Fatah are both adamant on the issue of “right of return” for the millions of descendants of those ~ 600,000 who left Palestine in 1948-49, and Israel will not permit that, this is a boilerplate statement from Hamas. Two state solution with right of return ain’t gonna happen, so no problem in making the statement.

1967 borders: Would Hamas be referring to 1949-1967 borders, or 1967- present borders? We know the answer.

“Hamas will respect the results (of a referendum) regardless of whether it differs with its ideology and principles..”

Hamas has not renounced its charter statements. My statement [not that of Charles Martel- which shows carelessness of Z-Team] stands: mission statement is still to destroy Israel.

Regarding the ability of Hamas to “respect the results of a referendum,” I refer you to what has happened after Hamas won a vote in Gaza. One vote, one time is the best way to describe the results.

Hamas is simply proposing a hudna, very similar to the occasional truces Hamas has called in Gaza.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 2:31 pm 59Ymarsakar

You Sly sneak. I didn’t know you were around. Oh well. If I get a magical hug from you, the exhaustion may be reversed in time. Heh
on 27 Jun 2011 at 2:38 pm 60SADIE

Gringo

We’ve been down this wadi before with the z-group. Plucking no news from Haaretz isn’t much different than the slim pickings from the NYTimes, both newspapers play to the same audience.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 2:49 pm 61Ymarsakar

I think logically speaking, if you want to eliminate the crime wave in Britain, you have to eliminate 80% of Leftists in Britain, and not just in the government or in their LEO communities.

If you don’t want to eliminate the crime wave, you can just wave your hands and declare Mission Accomplished with some adequate trope about “fighting crime” by “regulating guns and knives” or something.

The alternative is trying to eliminate the crime wave by reforming the system, which means getting rid of 80% of Leftists the slow way, which is prosecution. But that’s impossible so long as Leftists actually are in power. You have all seen how hard it is prosecute Democrats in DC, when it is Democrats and Republicans making the “decisions” on their guilt. Even in cases where they say X politician was guilty, they don’t do anything to punish them. Franks that oversaw the collapse of the housing market in 2008, conveniently just in time to help Obama win the election. That Clinton staffer that stuffed down secret documents so that he could take them home and destroy them, only had his security clearance “suspended” until it was reinstated. Any normal person would have been locked up and never been able to gain a security clearance again.

So back to my logic. If you want to eliminate the crime wave in Britain, you must eliminate the Leftist enablers as well as dealing with the Islamic/criminals themselves.

But you’ll never hear a logical counter-argument from Z on this score. Just a bunch of limb shaking “outrage” coming from the Zster’s Zriel Emotions.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 2:54 pm 62Ymarsakar

Also, there are local communities that if properly armed and supplied, will defeat the insurgents themselves. However, that also requires getting rid of Leftists because Leftists would block and subvert such local militias. They would get in the way, sabotage their works, defund whoever is aiding them, and divert the funds to Muslim terrorists and other criminal agencies.

Thus, it doesn’t matter if the locals can defend themselves. The Left will crush them anyways. So the Left must go if you wish to see British communities and innocents successfully defeat crime and criminals.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 3:09 pm 63Gringo

Sadie, your point (#60) is well taken. I now stay away from most of the meanderings from the Z-Team and from abc, having rolled my eyes more than one time too many. for any variety of reasons.

I find it ironic that some on the left will defend dictatorial theocrats such as Hamas, when they get all bent out of shape at any expression of religious faith in the public arena in the US. If those lefty clowns would spend a week in Gaza, I wager they would change their tune. The dishonesty of the left is shown when they make remarks claiming that American conservatives are just like the Taliban.
Disclaimer: I am not a churchgoer.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 3:22 pm 64Charles Martel

Ymarsakar, I say the most humane form of execution for Britain’s leftists would be to force them to undergo dentistry.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 3:22 pm 65SADIE

No problem, Gringo. You’re a member in good standing in the Church of What’s Happening Now.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 3:28 pm 66Charles Martel

SADIE, do you realize that if Flip Wilson had become big in Japan he would have been called Frip Wirson?
on 27 Jun 2011 at 3:33 pm 67Danny Lemieux

Ha, Charles M!

Reminds me of a story about General MacArthur’s departure from Japan, when everyone thought he would return to America to run against Pres. Harry Truman (who had just fired MacArthur for insubordination). The Japanese, who idolized MacArthur, put up a big send-off sign at the airport that said, “Have a good Election”.

Except that, they spelled it….
on 27 Jun 2011 at 3:56 pm 68SADIE

Hmm…looks like we’ve gone off topic.

And now for something completely different …. (not really). It’s the consummation of Hollywood and Washington. I mean who would have thought that the State Department also has membership in SAG or whatever a gaga signs up for to get paid for performing a gig out of town.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that the State Department played an instrumental role in “sealing the deal” for pop-rock star Lady Gaga to perform at a gay pride rally in Rome, Italy.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/hillary-us-ambassador-instrumental-seali
on 27 Jun 2011 at 4:03 pm 69Charles Martel

SADIE, not off topic at all. We’ve simply regained control of our sweet little veranda which sometimes gets taken over by a grim band of Jehovah’s Witnesses who all happen to be named Zach.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 4:28 pm 70DL Sly

I’ve been lurking here for a while now, Ymar.

“…Leftists would block and subvert such local militias.”

Well, you have to admit that the Brits are historically on the losing end when it comes to militias.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 4:31 pm 71Ymarsakar

The dishonesty of the left is shown when they make remarks claiming that American conservatives are just like the Taliban.

That’s not guaranteed, unfortunately. Soviet defectors have said that even if you take useful idiots from the US and show them Stalin death camps in Russia, they still won’t believe it or will find a way to rationalize.

Simply visiting a location does not mean they will change their thinking. The chances are higher, I agree, since they are closer to the “source of the propaganda lies”, but it is in no way a guarantee. In fact plenty of Leftists go there to “protest” or “rally around” their Pali allies. Some black Congress critter from Atlanta went there and got stopped by the Israeli navy, for example.

Didn’t change her mind none.

In order for the experience to be true, they have to be stripped of their status and escorts, and be given the experience raw and unpurified. They can’t be allowed any GPS or Western aid. They can’t be allowed any Pali minders. They have to live life, either on one side or the other, completely unknown to the rest of the official factions, in order to truly observe and experience what’s going on there.

It’s sort of like bankrupting a Prince and forcing him to live amongst commoners, after a life of luxury and being trapped within paradise. A different point of view is needed, rather than a different location. Because a Prince traveling the streets of commoners is still a Prince. No, first we must strip the Left of their status and securities, before ushering them into the great experience that is Gaza. Only then might they realize the truth.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 4:36 pm 72Ymarsakar

Correction, I was replying to Gringo’s state here: I wager they would change their tune

Boxed quoted the wrong line.

Martel, I don’t think the NHS has enough dentists for that scale of an operation. We might be running into the old problem of demand exceeding supply here.

The longer people are held before they are dealt with, the greater the chances some Leftist revolutionary group will take a bunch of innocents hostage in order to demand that we “release” their comrades. Well, if we don’t “have” any comrades to release, then… they might not kidnap anything.

Sly, now that I think it, years before I seem to remember you either commenting here or commenting about here at VC. It was so short, though, I probably forgot about it.

The “memory” is so vague it isn’t even a memory: more like a sense or feeling of a nebulous quality. It could even be a manufactured memory, something Leftists use in order to keep their internal mental stresses down.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 5:16 pm 73Ymarsakar

Sly, historically the British either lost interest or got bankrupted fighting overseas against their enemies, militias included. That would seem to be the case before. Unfortunately for the British, they’re fighting on their own land now so their government has a pretty tight logistical supply network. Of course, that would apply to both sides or all 3 sides of the equation, as they are all “fighting” from their home bases. Who has the home advantage when the local community of British citizens want local protection, when the local enclaves of Islamic jihadists go out jihading, and when the local and national British bureaucrat/government decides to crack down with the SAS?

They’re not all that unfamiliar with fighting local insurgents, given the IRA or the Picts of yester milleniums. They just don’t want fight the new insurgents, the Islamic Army. The IA has a lot more “protections” than the IRA ever did. I think they have a better chance, over all. And if the British government won’t fight the IA, they’ll go fight local British community defenders and militias instead. Use the SAS on those people. Those people don’t have as much protections as the Islamic “Asian youths”.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 6:15 pm 74Gringo

My comment # 63
If those lefty clowns would spend a week in Gaza, I wager they would change their tune.

Ymarsakar #71
That’s not guaranteed, unfortunately. Soviet defectors have said that even if you take useful idiots from the US and show them Stalin death camps in Russia, they still won’t believe it or will find a way to rationalize.
I did not explain myself well enough. Your point that political tourists usually do not change their points of view, but simply have have them confirmed, is a point well taken. Paul Hollander has written several good books on political tourism, from the Webbs visiting the Soviet Union in the 1920s to Sandalistas visiting Nicaragua in the 1980s.

What I was trying to say was that if those lefties could experience Gaza as Gazans do, they would change their minds. That is is not likely to occur in a week’s time, for a number of reasons. For one, very few Americans speak Arabic. When you have translators, you are going to experience things second hand, and are also a sitting duck for guided tours that show the reality that your handlers want you to see.

My time in Latin America changed my political views. However, I had several advantages over a tourist to Gaza. I spoke the language, so I didn’t have a handler filtering my perceptions. I did relatively little socializing with US citizens, but nearly all with locals, basically because there were few US citizens where I was. I didn’t avoid them- they weren’t there. By contrast, many who go overseas go as part of a tour group. The biggest difference was that I didn’t spend a week. I spent years.

I will rephrase it: If those lefty clowns could get to know Gaza as well as I got to know Latin America, I wager they would change their tune.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 6:55 pm 75Allen

Oooph, Gringo, I know. Me to, in my time in, late 70′s early 80′s in the old AfPak. Then on to Central America from 82 to 83. Funny thing is, we’re selling one of our houses, and I came across an old souvenir. My wife blasted me, “That crap is so over!”

Yes ma’am, three bags full.

Cheers
on 27 Jun 2011 at 7:24 pm 76Ymarsakar

Gringo, ah I see. Details do make the fate of humanity, in the end. And that’s why the devil is in the details. Deals from the Left sound so good… up until you read the fine print, at least. Not just those details, but details in anything. Plans, futures, probabilities, gambles, risks, ventures, people, character, crime, organizations, etc.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 7:35 pm 77Ymarsakar

Btw, it kind of says something when Britain’s “police armed force” that they call in is the British SAS. The US first calls in the National Guard than the Marine Corps. All others are more or less, not commonly used. If we are at the point that we need to call up the US SOCOM joint units to take care of things domestically, we are in a big hole.

http://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/history/northern-ireland/

Given the number of fatalities, including civilian ones, the reason why we don’t let the military do police work is because if the federal government ever sent Special Forces to kill the locals of any US State, that State can then use its own firepower to contest the issue and instead of quieting down, things would erupt and escalate into a full out shooting war.

Because unlike the Irish, Americans can pretty much get access to guns and they don’t need to use caches nor are the locals likely to rat them out. Enough arms that anyone shooting at civilians has a high likelyhood of civilians shooting back after a few incidents.

Intel is truly how an occupation force breaks the back of an insurgency. We needed it in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Left needs it on their political opponents (reason for all that searching in people’s backgrounds and trashes). The SAS needed it to ambush the IRA.

Fortunately the US is more robust than the UK. After all, foreigners aren’t coming into our country and killing our neighbors by “mistake”. Nor are people form other states coming in and doing the same (well, except for the southern border situation). At most, you have local SWAT police running into the wrong house and killing somebody by accident. Or getting killed by the armed residents. It’s not as sectarian as it could be. We have class and race warfare though. Let’s not underestimate that, especially given the Watts riots. La Raza and MS13 paired together could be a potent local disruption. Could be, although currently they are mostly localized in the South West. If they spread to the rest of the United States, however… I can tell you that Georgians won’t take kindly to a bunch of serial killing rapists coming into our neighborhoods and looking for somebody to kidnap and sell back as ransom. We got too many guns and too many people with a bloodthirst, that are just looking to get some payback for that “War of Northern Aggression” thing ; ) They might not care if all they have to target and shoot are Mexican cartels and Americans working for em.

I think with the introduction of the Islamic jihad, it has now become probable that UK citizens will begin to lose confidence in their national government; the Islamics will succeed where the IRA had failed. I think for the US, we’re not at the boiling point yet. It’ll take something more. More body bags, for one thing, across all US states. The southern border might erupt and that might be a trigger. Anything is possible. Mad Max is only possible because of a systemic and complete failure of the system. It would take a lot to disrupt all 50 states. One would almost have to have the terrorists working with the Mexican drug cartels invading Texas and New Mexico, working along with the US federal government to do that kind of damage.

Sorta like ATF’s alliance with Mexican drug cartels and Clinton’s aid being a Muslim Brotherhood member while the MB is conducting active bombings and killings in the US. Currently they aren’t connected. When they are, that’s when I see the end. Because that’s a potent alliance that might, just might, be able to disrupt all 50 US states.

I’ve gamed out a few “red level” scenarios where things go to the “shoot them, don’t take them alive” level. Such as Obama sending in some Islamic death squads to take American families hostage in order to force American soldiers to stomp down on civilian protests and civil strife. About a year or two before Ft. Hood, I was making a hypothesis and exploring the scenario of how to kill or capture 100% of the families living on base. How to get armed men inside, how to go house to house in the most efficient manner. I was told that bases such as Ft. Hood or bases in Iraq are “fortified” and have heavy armor reaction forces ready to launch at a moment’s notice. Now I’m not saying I was lied to, but I am saying that the REALITY is that US bases are a lot more “soft” than most people realized. And they don’t assume that the threat is “coming from inside”. US bases have a lot of defenses, against external threats, but against internal threats… soldiers aren’t even allowed to carry loaded firearms. All those things are in the armory. If the insurgent force destroys the armory, takes out command and communications, and uses a diversion to stall US responses while they go house to house killing or kidnapping all the women and children… how well would they do if they had a platoon of fighters?

That was the basic question. Ultimately, I said that the jihadists couldn’t do it. They don’t have 33 elite combat shock troops. We killed any of them they did have in Iraq and Afghanistan. They got nobody to train them up that level any more. That isn’t already fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 7:48 pm 78Ymarsakar

What Hasan demonstrated to me at Ft. Hood is that AQ is still lacking some strategic depth. If I was commanding their operations, I would have told Hasan to wait until I got 33 suicide bombers and mass murderers, like what got sent to Bombay, and basically use Hasan’s immunity and insider status to find a way to stealth slip 33 serial killers into a US base. Then Hasan could go to the armor or armories and either rig boobytraps or simply start shooting people and barricade himself in. While Hasan was creating the diversion, the 33 suicide jihadists would go to the residential housing, blow through any of the guards, and basically drop off one fighter per house.

I tried to organize and think up how they could kidnap any one and get out, but it’s basically a suicide mission. No way they could get out. No professional armed force would ever “take that job” since it was a suicide mission. You can maybe get a lot of hostages, but the US Army and whatever, will never let you go. Their super snipers will have .50 calibers punching through 4 houses just to get ya.

But they can kill a lot of people. And it’s a bonus for them. They get to hit an infidel military post, and kill them some women and children. Palestinians love killing Jewish women and children, by dashing the child’s head against a rock until the brain case leaks grey fluid matter. Jihadists of the AQ persuasion are much the same.

Well, that’s how I would have ran the asset called “Hassan”. Fortunately for patriotic Americans, Hasan cashed himself out in a blaze of bullets. And that was about it. When I heard that an inside agent had gotten to Ft. Hood and was so high a rank, one of the first things I said to myself was, “that’s it, he only got about 2 dozen people?”.

AQ incompetence balanced out General ‘Caseys’ diversity incompetence.
on 27 Jun 2011 at 8:44 pm 79SADIE

I will rephrase it: If those lefty clowns could get to know Gaza as well as I got to know Latin America, I wager they would change their tune.

Gringo, for what it’s worth I understood exactly what you meant. The very reason, I get so enraged to frustrated with arm chair tourists, including foreign ambassadors and cruise ship passengers (including the flotilla lizards to Gaza).
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:44 pm 80Ymarsakar

Sadie, they said Obama was fit to govern international affairs because he was a child in Indonesia so he “knows” that part of the world. After all, don’t all Elementary Children know enough about the country they live in to govern foreign policy?
on 27 Jun 2011 at 9:49 pm 81SADIE

It certainly accounts for his ‘bully’ methods and thinking the WH is his playground or a golf course.
on 28 Jun 2011 at 6:51 am 82Ymarsakar

Zach, so given Ymarsaker’s quote, who do you think he was referring to in terms of his “assassination teamEreference?-Danny L

I don’t think Z understood more than 10% of what that comment he quoted from me meant. It’s not like he can produce an analysis of it, thus I predict he['s] ignorant of [certain] critical points and thus until he corrects that ignorance, he’s in the void for the moment.-YM

In Z style summary. Welcome to the Void. Please have your passenger identification ready to be presented.
on 28 Jun 2011 at 8:47 am 83suek

>>But you’ll never hear a logical counter-argument from Z on this score. Just a bunch of limb shaking “outrage” coming from the Zster’s Zriel Emotions.>>

Z is outraged at any threat of violence. So…if push comes to shove, and shoving is unacceptable, what can he do?

Of course, as the Libyan action has shown, violence isn’t _really_ unacceptable – as long as someone else does the dirty work.

The problem is ideas. You could try to kill even 80%, but the last 20% would still be preaching the gospel of leftism. I think it would be better to just confine them to certain areas and prevent them from mingling with the general population. Wonder how they’d do in their own little commune?

Are there still any active communes left from the 60s?
on 28 Jun 2011 at 9:47 am 84DL Sly

“Are there still any active communes left from the 60s?”

Yes, only nowadays it’s called Berkley.
0>;~}
on 28 Jun 2011 at 5:36 pm 85Ymarsakar

Historically such troublesome folks have been exiled to islands like Elba. Even in the modern era, it’s relatively easy to keep people on an island.
on 28 Jun 2011 at 5:39 pm 86Charles Martel

Yeah, like Manhattan.
on 28 Jun 2011 at 9:36 pm 87Ymarsakar

Given that Z has retreated to meditate upon his lack of comprehension on this issue, I do have to wonder… why does Z keep falling into these traps?

Is he an AI incapable of learning from his previous mistakes or a human that is too foolish to believe his mistakes warrant introspection?
on 28 Jun 2011 at 9:40 pm 88Ymarsakar

You could try to kill even 80%, but the last 20% would still be preaching the gospel of leftism.

They can try. But usually humans respond well to terror. After 80% of their compatriots are taken down in such a brutal and public fashion, they will think more than twice about their activities.

Even the New York Times won’t print bad news about Muslims, for fear of what will naturally happen. And Muslims never executed 80% of the staff at the NYTimes. I can guarantee you that any group that faced an 80% attrition rate… would literally be shattered. All that would be left are useless husks and wreckages of a defeated faction.

That’s assuming the 80% is real and not fake in terms of total numbers. It has to be real, not fake, for the real results to happen.
on 28 Jun 2011 at 9:43 pm 89Charles Martel

Ymarsakar, given their adoration of unfettered sex, I was rather hoping all those lefties would belly up from STDs.
on 28 Jun 2011 at 9:52 pm 90Ymarsakar

All they have and will do is to make our antibiotics less effective. For the grace of humanity, don’t let them get any more “I take antibiotics when I feel bad” plans.