Authorities have identified the soldier killed in Monday’s double-shooting outside a U.S Army recruitment office in west Little Rock.
According to Pulaski County Coroner Garland Camper, 23-year-old William Long of Conway died shortly after being transported to a Little Rock hospital.
Police say the incident occurred around 10:15 a.m. at a U.S. Army Navy Career Center inside the Ashley Square Shopping Center at 9112 North Rodney Parham Road. According to Lt. Terry Hastings with the Little Rock Police Department, two enlisted soldiers standing outside the office were hit when a suspect drove up in a black SUV and began shooting.
At a briefing Monday afternoon, Little Rock police chief Stuart Thomas identified the suspect as Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, 24, of Little Rock. Thomas says Muhammad also goes by the name Carlos Bledsoe.
Hastings identified the second wounded soldier as Quinton Ezeagwula, age unknown. He remains at a local hospital in stable condition with non-life-threatening injuries.
Muhammad led police on a brief pursuit towards downtown Little Rock, before being taken into custody in the area of the Interstate 30/630 interchange. Authorities searched the vehicle and found an assault rifle, Hastings said. A bomb squad was called in, as police were concerned about two bags in the vehicle, but no explosives were found, he said.
At the Monday-afternoon briefing, Thomas said investigators believe Muhammad acted alone, and likely carried “political and religious motives.” Thomas said the gunman targeted the military but was not believed to be part of a broader scheme.
Muhammad faces one capital murder charge, and 15 counts of terroristic acts.
Whose violent rhetoric shall we blame for this?
Perhaps someone would care to rewrite this passage from Lean Left for the occasion:
A suspect was arrested only a few hours after the Tiller killing, and to absolutely no one’s surprise he’s a white male Christian with a long history of affiliation with the extreme fringe, anti-government and militia groups, and anti-abortion activism, including links to Operation Rescue.
As for me, both murders nauseate.
Frank Schaeffer is still milking it:
But I’d like to say on this day after a man was murdered in cold blood for preforming [sic] abortions that I — and the people I worked with in the religious right, the Republican Party, the pro-life movement and the Roman Catholic Church, all contributed to this killing by our foolish and incendiary words.
Fair enough, Frank. One thing, though, hasn’t changed about you: your overweening self-righteousness. Who’s going to take responsibility for the murder of William Long?
Which right-wingers would you like to hatef*ck?
Getting to know you! Getting to know all about you!
You know, initially I thought Tiller’s murderer should simply get a pat on the back, but thankfully all on the hand-wringing from the left has made me see the error of my ways.
I’m so ashamed.
I tried to engage the Link Left folks. They either don’t want to play or can’t figure out where I am, hard to tell.
What is the real word for Islamist, Dan? I’ll bet that is what he is.
Hey, you know how Obama kept going on about he was going to end the illegal wars against Muslims?
Let’s not pussyfoot here. Barack Obama is an accomplice to the murder of William Long. This is an obvious outcome of the hateful rhetoric directed at our armed forces and the work they’re doing.
Also, Jack Murtha. And John Kerry. And Kyoto.
Muhammad acted alone, yet Tiller’s murderer was acting on behalf of everyone who is anti-choice.
Got it.
What is the real word for Islamist
Democrat.
Dan,
I’d love to rewrite that paragraph for you pal, but when I saw that race was described in it…
Well that would be the part where we’d be done…
You see, it’s all well and good to be all over the eeeeeeevil cristianint religious fanatic domestiic terrorist-as long as he’s a white male. Hell, they’re still trying to make into some far reaching “conspircy”…
But a southern black man, regardless of wether he changed his name to be more arabian sounding or afrocentric-whatever posturing he desired; I’m sure that society made him a victim somehow…
Maybe it was the ether of the eeeeevil SUV; all those carbon emissions poisioned his mind…
He’s simply a twisted killer, just like Tiller’s murderer. There is one difference though, Tiller was murdered in the name of some false righteousness, as if God needed help on any matter…
These soldiers though were murdered for a political intent. Although there may have also been a quasi-religious component, this is part and parcel of the way most Islamo-fascists, or those who fancy themselves ones, make their political statements; you see it from Hamas, Hizbulah, and AQ far more than anyone wishes…
And the other difference is that Tillers murder is being widely ballyhooed, the depraved members of the MSM and the far left trying to use it to score points against the pro-life crowd. But this stories of the recruiter’s office violence is being almost buried; although we see it on Drudge and such, I guarantee Katie Couric is not leading with it any time soon…
Perhaps I’m biased, but this murder is more closely tied to all of the political rhetoric used to oppose the war on terror, characterizing our soldiers as baby killers and such, than Tiller’s death is to any Mainstream pro-life group…
Both deaths are useless tragedies…
For the left, one murder nauseates. And stokes teh bigotry.
Progressivism. It’s like bad religion.
I’d like to know which mosque this guy went to. From all accounts, that’s where it generally starts.
For the left, one has broader meaning and the other is just a independent act.
I can’t believe how many articles there were about Tiller on Pandagon.
*Muhammad acted alone, yet Tiller’s murderer was acting on behalf of everyone who is anti-choice.*
As you are well aware Carin, Muslims are generally peaceloving friendly people who respect all races and all religions, while christians are judgmental bigot homophobe god botherers who hate sex, diversity, brown people, poor people, rap music, hot dogs and apple pie. Round up the christians, unleash the lions on them, it will teach those violent extremists to mess with the tolerant progressive left and their muslim allies.
I can’t believe how many articles there were about Tiller on Pandagon.
Well, nothing gets a lefty hard/wet (to be “gender appropriate”) like masturbating while covered in someone else’s blood.
The numbers tell the tale.
We think alike, Dan. That’s a good thing.
I find it … interesting as well that George Tiller will now, most likely, be hailed as a martyr for their cause. The soldier who died, who is going to remember him? He was killed because of what he represented, not by anything he had actually done. It’s just awful.
This in no way excuses Tiller’s murder. I just can’t stand the juxtaposition.
Defend your soup, trolls.
The soldier who died, who is going to remember him?
Pvt. William Long, age 23.
Left-wing Terrorism (pdf).
Oh, they’ve done that. Just ask Pravda.
Carin, I’m sorry that the juxtaposition offends. In their strange world, the Weather Underground bombings are morally superior, because they weren’t aimed at any particular individual in some cases. That’s why serr8d challenged my characterization, but there’s a point to it.
when a suspect drove up in a black SUV
This guy hates the environment. You people…
It’s not YOUR juxtaposition. To me, these acts were, at their base, exactly the same. Tiller’s murderer was probably fixated on Tiller himself, but it was because of what he did, fueled by his ideology. He hated abortion, and Tiller performed what he (and I) viewed as the vilest form
It is the RESPONSE to these murders that bothers me. To me, they either both have a broader meaning, or neither do.
Guess which tact I take?
BTW, I’m not dogging on you, Carin. I had to go back and look for his name again — and yet all of us know Tiller’s name.
That’s just another sign of the disparate treatment that these stories have gotten in the media, I think.
Alone among the major media outlets, ABC News still has the Arkansas recruiter shooting on their front page.
CNN gave it a little play yesterday, but has disappeared it today. They do have a Tiller story, though.
MSNBC has it buried way down at the bottom of a list of links, with the informative headline “Political motive cited in military office attack”.
New York Times: no mention of Long, still flogging Tiller.
Washington Post: no mention of Long, still flogging Tiller.
It’s uncanny, isn’t it, how we have two murder cases where the perp was motivated by twisted religious views, and yet the newer one is dropped while the older one still gets play? One might almost think they have an agenda.
KOS caused this. And Nishi.
I blame Amynda Marcotte.
Can’t help but notice how the recruiter shooting has vanished from the front page of google’s news aggregator, while the Tiller killing is still on top.
I know you’re not dogging me. And, it doesn’t help that you and I may know his name. I meant in the broader sense, people will NOT know his name.
Tiller will become a household name like Matthew Shepherd’s.
Trying to compare and contrast the two killings loses much of its power after noting that each cowardly killer attacked unarmed victims in unprotected places. Military recruitment centers get protested against and occasionally have violent protests, but very rarely to the extent of that which happens much of the time if not at a daily basis at many health clinics where abortions are performed. I also doubt that there are many lefty blogs where the comment sections are filled with praises for the killer and hatred for the victim. I further doubt that any Muslim organization will feel a need to hold a press conference to condemn the killing while also being sure to mention that those who kill Iraqis and Afghans have blood on their hands.
TSI, Google claims that that page is constructed automatically, and they may well be telling the truth — if the Tiller story is getting vastly more coverage (and it is), you’d expect an algorithm to assign it more weight.
So it’s not necessarily an indictment of Google.
Your special pleading doesn’t impress me, jon.
That no Muslim organization feels the necessity to disavow the actions of the shooter in the latter instance is an index of the problem.
I also doubt that there are many lefty blogs where the comment sections are filled with praises for the killer and hatred for the victim.
You don’t read many lefty blogs, do you?
BTW, where are these “righty blogs” that are “filled with praises for the killer and hatred for the victim”.
I don’t suppose you have any, oh, I don’t know, EVIDENCE for that implication?
SBP, yes, it’s more of an indictment of the whole press.
Let me give you an example of the disparity.
In the TBT, the liberal rag handed out on the streets in Tampa, you have a big fat article decrying the murder of Tiller and a tiny three sentence column noting the death of the soldier in arkansas. They mention the suspect was captured without incident but of course completely ignore the shooter is a muslim and an extremist.
I hate the press. Loathe them. I hope they fail.
Jon?
Come on, where are these “righty blogs”?
Certainly the Tiller killing was universally condemned on the ones I read.
Yo, Jon?
One question is, will Muhammad be at the arraignmnent or just some schlub named Carlos Bledsoe? I’m betting on the latter.
And I didn’t mention any “special pleading” for your benefit, Mr. Collins. But just what the hell is a “special pleading” anyway?
Jon, this guy was a recent Muslim recruit.
Don’t you love how well he picked up on the peace and love portion of the Islamic message?
And I didn’t mention any “special pleading†for your benefit
How about mentioning a few “righty blogs” where the comment section is “filled with praises for the killer and hatred for the victimâ€.
Alternatively, how about retracting that slur?
There you go, Jon. The important thing about this is which name he’s arraigned under. Not the murder of a soldier just out of basic training.
Come on, Jon. Surely you can name ONE?
I mean, there are so MANY of them, right?
Background SFX: sound of Jon furiously Googling, trying to find some obscure whackjob blog to support his slur.
If Carlos had used a drone to kill the recruiters, provided it was under an Obama administration, then the killing of innocents would be no big deal to jon. Otherwise, it’s a cowardly act of a coward who is cowardly. But Obama acts are never cowardly. They are only brave and noble and non-cowardly. If the moron who killed Tiller had only thought to wear an Obama T-shirt, he’d be playing Xbox Gitmo right now. Same for Carlos.
Can we conclude that Jon is a liar yet?
I’ve got to go in to work for a while. I’ll check back later.
Roeder knew that Tiller had terminated hundreds of late term pregnancies over a long career, while Muhammad struck Long, a random person wearing a US military uniform (who, being a private, couldn’t possibly have been in the Army very long, and might well have never personally killed anyone).
This is why some people are calling the Tiller murder an “assassination”, while Long’s murder is “terrorism” (or “man-caused” whatever euphemism we’re supposed to use now), or maybe even a war crime (if Muhammad felt he were defending the Ummah against an invading army, he might be deemed an unlawful combatant in that war).
Note that I use the word “murder” for both; both acts are criminal.
Jon I have not seen one “rightwing” hangout where people were happy about that. I think it is ghoulish the way everyone immediately tries to assess the political impact of a freakin MURDER, but that is the times we live in I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz71p3pt2tI&feature=related
It was an act of radical Islamic terrorism on our soil btw. Streak ended. But GM will come back stronger and greener and more governmenty. You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
Jon’s paradigm is letting him down.
45
You know what I did not realize that. That is the first successful act of terrorism to happen on American soil since 911 isn’t it? Nothing newsworthy about I guess from the way it is being covered. CHANGE!!
Operation Rescue’s blog stopped comments when (I assume) they got… unseemly. Free Republic has some comments that praised the killing, and even suggested that more babies be killed as a special memorial for his honor (I know that was snark, but it certainly wasn’t in the spirit of (automaton voice:) “We are horrified by this senseless killing.”) I saw some other comments on my local paper’s blog (azstarnet.com) as well. Not a righty blog, but the comments weren’t from lefty sympathizers out for blood. Did I employ hyperbole? Probably not. Did I accuse right wing bloggers? No. It is commenters that go overboard, generally. This site is pretty civil in commentland, others are less so, and some attract primate shitslingers. But I was commenting on comments, and so far I’ve seen far more hatred expressed for abortionists on right wing blogs than for military recruiters on leftwing ones. (And I agree with the rightwingers in the notion that military recruiters should be allowed on campus. I think abortionists should be able to have information booths as well, but that’s not been as much of an issue.)
jon, remember any of the times HuffPo has had to close down comments, for instance, regarding Tony Snow’s cancer?
Operation Rescue’s blog stopped comments when (I assume) they got… unseemly.
So? You’re arguing that’s a generic “righty blog”?
Free Republic has some comments that praised the killing
Not a blog.
So you have one special-topic blog, one non-blog, and your local paper’s comments section.
I find your examples…unpersuasive.
I also remember some guy named Markos saying “Fuck em” regarding the bodies of contractors being drug thru the streets of Fallujah. I don’t think he was just a commentator but I could be wrong. I guess that don’t count though. No more blood for oil. Jon if you get bored you can also look thru the pictures here from some great anti-war rallies.
http://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
But I was commenting on comments, and so far I’ve seen far more hatred expressed for abortionists on right wing blogs than for military recruiters on leftwing ones.
And yet you can’t provide any examples.
Operation Rescue’s blog, which you cited, has apparently disabled commenting. That means that you couldn’t have seen it there.
If you’ve seen “far more hatred”, where was it?
It is an act of domestic terror that deserves the full punishment of the law. So who did fire up Mohammeded aka Bledsoe?
Anyone from The Left has no room to talk about Community (organized) Compassion.
I’m starting to suspect that the “hatred” that jon has “seen” consists of single, selected comments plucked out of context (in specific, the followup condemnations from other commmenters) and reposted on lefty sites.
Many of them were doubtless lefty moby posts (such as the post from “Tad” here.
Naturally, he can’t admit this – otherwise he’d have to face the fact that he’s been taken in.
I somehow don’t believe that if I dug hard enough i couldn’t find a commenter on a lefty blog site who said that military recruiters were fascists and should be killed.
It’s not like this is the first incident of this.
Note that Jon implied that the righty comment sections were “full” of those sorts of posts.
oh lordy
Jon
Trying to assess a BLOG by the comments on one or two threads (especially on high profile subjects) is dishonest because there is little in the way of confirming whether or not the sentiment is real or someone is playing Moby. You assess the blog by the POSTS of the known authors.
So, where is these righty blogs with “Tiller got what he deserved” POSTS?
And if you think that moslems don’t hold press conferences after any incident in which it appears that moslems are the perps then you haven’t paid attention to CAIR…who are fast to say “this was isolated but oh by the way if you all weren’t so bigotted against us the frustration wouldn’t spill over this way”.
Pandagon, firedoglake, et al will dine on Tiller for weeks, and there was NO mention of this murder of our military on either one.
jon seems so nice, for a liar.
Remember this jon, it was not left by a random commentor, it was by the owner of the blog.
“I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.”
Wanna see some hate in comment sections jon? See here
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/02/27/assassination-chic-cheney-edition/
Comments left on blogs are indicative of precisely nothing and are the cheapest of cheap argumentative ploys by tired bloggers.
Charles Johnson had some truly vile quotes from some anti-abortion lunatics posted on his site, designed to illuminate the presumptive radical streak at the core of the pro-life movement. (He didn’t say this directly of course, but he implied it.) yet the tables are as readily turned on Charles. From about 2002 to 2006, the most absurdly pro-military action, comic-book zionist comments were left on the site in response to every last posting dealing with the Middle East, stacked one another dozens deep.
These weren’t just supportive of Israeli or American military action (although LGF’s posters frequently stooped to some parody of what a Nation magazine reader imagined neo-cons thought and acted like), they were flatly imperialist and frequently racist.
Old Charles wields the troll hammer much more rapidly now, and I am a fan and defender of his, especially against idiots like Pam Geller, but he is way, way too liberal with using comments to illustrate broader policy points. It is beyond cheap.
Good point, mcgruder.
What I interesting, and by interesting I mean sad and pisses me off to no end, is that there have been attacks at recruiting centers nationwide, from Berkley to New York, and they receive very little coverage.
Frank can stuff his collective guilt. I am responsible for my actions and only my actions, and the murderers are responsible for theirs. If he can show that the Catholic Church or the Republican Party advocated the killing of Tiller, then indict them for it.
Otherwise, come back when you’ve got a better case than “I’m human. Hitler was human. I’m responsible for the deaths of 6 million.” I am, he was, and I am not.
Comment by thor on 6/2 @ 8:27 am #
Still collecting little boys underpants, whore?
But thor,
What you must admit is that among one group the idea is mainstramed, and even institutionalized (Hamas, Hizbullah), while among the Christians, who you stretch to include as terrorists, the thinking is restricted to a very small percentage of the overall group-a lunatic fringe…
And, while the zealous pro-lifers see themselves as combatting a single issue, the Islamo-fascists are opposed to our very existence and way of life. Thay are out to end our society as a whole and not any singular practice…
Meh. Those attacks are from lefties. Covering them might reveal a pattern of politically-motivated violence from the left. Which might have led people to focus on not just current, but recent historical examples of political violence from the left. Which might have led to some uncomfortable questions for the One.
Much safer to treat the lefts’ organized violence as a series of isolated events while drawing connections — no matter how tenuous — between every act which might be considered to have come from the right.
thor, that’s what I’m arguing, and what jon is arguing against.
Bob, don’t respond to whor. He’s not here to discuss, he’s here to abuse. Leave him to abusing himself.
Rob – It is pretty disgusting, isn’t it?
You know who is really supportive of abortion rights? Radical Islamists. GOOGLE IT.
*I’d say the same for Christian terrorists who bomb and shoot those they disagree with*
You mean the occasional rare example of christians going after abortion doctors ? (and put it to you this way – I don’t consider anyone who murders “Christian”- that’s between them and God I guess but real Christians do not condone murder, period). Its reprehensible and anyone who protests abortion through violent means should be prosecuted.
However, the number of “christian terrorists” is dwarfed by the sheer amount of muslims who murder innocents in this country and others. If you want to compare death toll numbers in the last 20 years, we can do so.
Glad you didn’t table the thought that violent Islamist fanatics could save American lives by eventually penetrating the ranks of the abortionists.
But the irony is that of the criticisms Islamist fanatics might have of Americans, a profound asymmetry arises where the Islamist fanatics rightly condemn the American secularism that disregards unborn life. And that without getting into the pragmatic concerns about the West repopulating itself at a tiny fraction that of they. So about the mindsets, there are some important differences even if there’s no difference in the unacceptability of the respective murders.
This can’t be brought up, of course, when the left’s policy de jour in the immediate aftermath of the Tiller murder is so controlling that it prevents any mention of millions of dead unborns. (And weren’t they alive before if they’re dead after?) Just saying that makes me a proponent of anti-abortionist rhetoric, if not worse. I condemn myself, as the line goes.
Wow. Talk about controlling meaning.
I’ve condemned all of the killings roundly…
And I wish you would show me where I’ve reffered to others bahavior as a cover to engage in it myself…
‘Cuz I’m pretty sure that’s one lame practice I don’t engage in…
I think Jon’s point about the name of the suspect in the Arkansas murder was valid (if I read him right). While he’s a muslim convert, if his lawyer has half a brain, will do everything in his power to have him tried as Carlos vs. Muhammad. I don’t mind that necessarily, as the man’s motive for murder (religion) will come out during trial but I’m tired of seeing the press whitewash muslim names when reporting on these crimes.
Muslims are committing these murders, in the name of their religion and/or politics. It should be reported as such. I cannot stand the double standard the press applies and how the press (and the left) seem to believe christians are the real enemy.
Slugblog has an excellent follow up post at Ace of Spades
where one can declare man’s law they can use that as an excuse to violate God’s law. Discuss the relative perils of both on a balanced scale, if you can.
I really like the Hollywood interpretation of bible-thumping (assuming that’s your allusion). It’s almost like it’s a running army of strawmen or something. Dawn of the Living Undead Christians. Deliverance us From the God Botherers III.
*The scale is not the same, I’d never say it was, though the two mindsets are very similar.*
I don’t agree with you. Abortion doctors are targeted because a certain group of people believe they are committing murder. Personally, I believe late term abortions are murder. However, muslim terrorists generally target innocents or persons of “low morals”. For example, christians may believe homosexuality is wrong but I can’t think of a case where a group of christians got together and murdered a homosexual on the basis of their belief. Muslims, however, murder homosexuals in muslim countries, based on their religion. They murder their wives for being adultresses and murder their children for having sex or thinking unclean thoughts. No comparison.
The difference is disapproval of a lifestyle (and peacefully and democratically attempting to limit its effects on society- ie prop 8) vs. intolerance to such an extent that murder is acceptable. There is no comparison in terms of the belief systems.
The two murders are exactly the same. It’s an amazing thing that history has afforded us the opportunity to look at these side-by-side.
The two murders are exactly the same. It’s an amazing thing that history has afforded us the opportunity to look at these side-by-side.
It’s like the election of Obama and the swine flu epidemic.
That the MSM would go Full Monty on Tiller and essentially ignored the murder of a US soldier by a Muslim with suspected ties to terrorists is simply shocking.
The media – in totality – is more left leaning than right leaning. There’s ample evidence of that. Reporters are statistically more likely to register Democrat. Even I have to admit it.
That was very big of you, Sammah. Admitting inconvenient facts is a good step. You see, on this one, you and I are in agreement.
If when considering all the evidence Islam is the religion of peace, thor, why is Christianity universally the territory of hick wingers in
poppostmodern American culture?Seems PC lurvs it some asymmetry.
But what to do? Call your local media outlets and express outrage? Maybe. They seem to be all about just giving us what they think we want to hear.
Wiggers should be deep fried.
Bullshit. The Kansas Abortionist Killer knew his target personally; has spent inordinate amounts of his life studying his habits; essentially, getting to know his prey.
Mohammed, on the other hand, knew nothing about the two soldiers he shot. He saw a target, and reacted. No planning whatsoever.
Try again, Sammy.
eferences to the single dumbest crutch of the right – teh meeeedeeeya.
Believe it or not, but Media bias DOES matter. It. Simply. Does. More studies, linked in this article .
“
Or not. And here. And oops.
Yes, JD is right. Sammy deserves kudos for acknowledging the elephant in the room.
Point taken,
I am no fan of the MSM. I get tired of the whole journalists as activists thing…
They do seem to push an agenda though; but on the other hand it’s possible that I still simply listen to too many mainstream sources. Still, it’s hard to not be concerned how collusion by the groups like the “journo-list crowd and the daily Stephanopolous-Begala-Emmanual-Carville conference calls, all designed to color the coverage in a particular fashion for a specific intent, serve the public good…
And your point about controlling the commentary, “hit” driven prominence of any particular story is also, as well as weighting is also valid…
I only hope that whatever incarnation the new media finally takes is more objective and less editiorial…
I mean, they should leave the editorializing to regular folks, dedicated opinion pages, and places like this…
peace-out
The problem is that lefty Democrats, they assure you, don’t “own” black Muslim soldier-killers like the GOP “owns” white Christian abortionist-killers. So you can’t pin this one on them, no matter how many times Kos said “screw ’em” or Obama said our soldiers only bomb civilians or how many times the Lancet lefties said that our soldiers were the reason that there were 800 jillion “extra” deaths in Iraq.
As Dana Carvey use to say: “How conveeeeeenient!”
Oh, and it took Obama 6 hours to condemn a white Christian for killing an abortionist. It has now been almost 24 hours and not a word from Obama condemning a black Muslim who killed a US soldier. Could he make this any easier?
Bob, Thor is completely, 100% wrong wrong wrong. The bias in the media doesn’t affect you or I or anyone else who is a news junky. Who it affects is the … 85% of the rest of the population. Who get just about ALL of their information from casual contact with information.
Oh, and it took Obama 6 hours to condemn a white Christian for killing an abortionist. It has now been almost 24 hours and not a word from Obama condemning a black Muslim who killed a US soldier. Could he make this any easier?
What a tool.
I don’t mind bias, if the bias is admitted. What I mind is the declarations of being unbiased while constantly slanting coverage, non-coverage, pacing, and tone in one way.
HEARTACHE! Thor’s beloved Pravda delineates the collapse of the US:
Your admissions demonstrates intellectual honesty Sammy,
And you’re right thatthere is little that can be done. The only hope at getting a handle on the truth is to rely on a wide variety of source material, and use our heads for more than hatracks…
I worry about too much short term thinking in our nation, and the pollution of our morality by the widespread use of situational ethics. It seems like were too caught up in outing religious moralizing hypocrities, while the sanctimonious secular ones not so much…
I’m not trying just to be down on the president when I cite the dramatic spending increases while lecturing us proles on living beyond our means; just as a for instance though, and not a segue to move off topic…
We all need to think about what’s good for us, as a nation, because we can’t count on other who may be jealous of us or have a secretive agenda, to look out for our best interests…
What we can do is illustrate how easily a recent convert to Islam is drawn more to the ‘angry’ side of that strange religion, rather than to the ‘peace and love’ side (show me again where that’s at?). And, using this recent Mohammed as an example, suggest to Islamic leaders a much-needed reform.
I’ll be sure to wait around for that to happen…
Funniest thing in that editorial, Carin, is it blaming the Soviet Union on “Wall Street”.
No, Russian children, that was all yours. You inflicted upon yourselves a regime more monstrous than the Nazis.
It is positively silly to expect the MSM to act in any manner other than the manner in which they are acting. They are biased, they skew greatly to the Left, and write and report almost everything through that prism.
That’s cute, thor.
That’s cute, thor.
Is that the JHoward equivalent of how they say “Ain’t that nice” in the South?
thor’s typically having everything all ways, Carin. He can get back to us when he wants to get serious.
Bob – Sadly, this one appears to only have brief moments of lucidity, and then it will quickly fall back into barking moonbattery.
TYhere. Is no. Fucking. Story. Here.
Got that?
Carin,
It’s thise folks that only pay casual attention to what’s going on that worry me the most; because they are easily led, and the notions they hear are reinforced by others in their circle of life that are also basically apathetic to current events…
At the time of the American revolution, approximately 30% of the population were tories, 20% what we would call Patriots, and the remaing 50% apathetic; willing to roll with whoever the victors of the struggle were…
Thank God the right guys came out on top!
But unfortunately, today we still have the same level of apathy in our society. If asked, most will have an “opinion”; even if not well considered, they don’t want to seem stupid if questioned. The problem becomes when this uninformed and apathetic lot, in their zeal to be “intelligent” simply parrots whatever they’ve been most recently told…
And while that hold for both side of the political spectrum, the domination of the MSM by liberals insure that a greater percentage of these folks will be parroting liberal talking points…
The domination of the MSM and education, Bob.
As I recounted on my blog, reading through the high school course catalog, one of the Senior Lit reading books is “The Five People You Meet In Heaven.” The fuck???? This isn’t AP, but it is a college track course. How do we expect people to have thinking skillz, when they’re never required to think?
Bullshit. Liberalism is not about hard word, twhore. Conservatives and their ideals built this nation. What have liberals – Leftists given us? CRA belongs solely to Democrats; the failure to straighten out Fannie and Freddie during Bush’s term (when Republicans wanted to straighten that out) Democrats; the embrace of Labor Unions, Democrats; the embrace of more and more social programs, Democrats. Leftists. Liberals.
The Democrat party is that of gimme, gimme, more, more, I want, I want, I WANT FREE GAS BITCHES! PUMP MY FREE GAS NOW!111!!!!1111!!11!1!!
Producers and parasites, serr8d. Every group has em.
Very good point Carin,
Eduction in our nation has become an issue that we throw money at, instead of investing true thought and analysis in for a long time…
In our zeal to have more teachers for our students we haven’t always limited hiring to the best candidates; and other factors have led to some mediocre individuals getting tenure…
And, as with most organizational structure, the peter principle insures that a number of incompetents rise to the top; it’s exacerbated exponentially when those come from ranks already swelled with the mediocre…
Whatever you are basing that on, thor.
Of course, I used to read French literature in French. But, carry on with your irrelevant comments.
Ok, get rid of “exactly†and put in “striking similaritiesâ€. I mean, one happened in a church, the other didn’t.
They’re the same in that a person, motivated by religious convictions, felt they were justified in the eyes of God in pointing a gun at another person and killing them. They likely both viewed the people they were shooting as “murdersâ€, or at least members of (what they consider) a murdering group. They likely both thought they were killing a bad person and doing the world a favor. And both killers likely thought they were sending a broader “this is what happens to people like you†message.
Also, please don’t take this as a “religion is evil†rant. Both victims were likely taken to a hospital founded by someone religious. Maybe given blood provided by the American Red Cross – also founded by a faithful individual.
Personally, both murders make me wish there truly were a hell.
I honestly don’t wish the Long murder got more media attention. I wish the Tiller killer got less. They’re both murders, and they’re both tragic, they both need to be reported, but I think the media is playing into the strategy of the killers by obsessing on either one.
The same MSM is complicit in the run-up to the war in Iraq. They just feed us what they think we want to hear. Statistically, that’s more often a left leaning message, but not always.
I hate to keep bringing up Boosh, but I think he was the one who said, “The proletariat is sharpening their pitchforks. QUICK! SEND THEM CHECKS!â€
Boosh and “deficits don’t matter†Cheney ass-fucked the economy. If Barney Frank really killed the economy all by himself, then I’m going to start praying to that guy, because that’s some serious super-natural voodoo. I know you thinks it’s all about “force banks to give poor people loansâ€, but do please google “default credit swapâ€.
Conform, Carin, to thor’s impossible fictions, to his mad rumour, to all his wily projections.
Well, the intellectual ancestors of modern liberals gave us eugenics. And the Civil War. Thankfully they eventually lost both of those.
And why ya’ll still talking at whor? He ain’t listening.
He’s here to waste your time.
And if we want to throw stones, conservatives gave us witch burning, and opposed small pox vaccinations (and, oh yeah, civil rights = bad, bad, bad).
Sammy – If Bush’s deficits were bad, why are Teh Ones deficits which are exponentially higher, good?
Do you think that the media truly gives us what we want, or what they think we want?
Another fundamental difference, Sammy, is that one was murdered for what he did, and one was murdered for who he is, and who he represented. One of these is a hate crime ;-)
So Everett Dirksen’s hand in writing the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a figment of our imagination, you’re saying?
Sammy – Which party filibustered the Civil Right Act? Which party has a former Grand Kleagle in a position of power?
Because Obama’s are going to line the pockets of Democrats!
And why are you arguing with “Sammy”? He’s as much a waste as whor.
(But if you really want to corner him — which party created the Klan? Which party blocked anti-lynching laws at the federal level? And which party, within the last two months, laid the ground for re-creating the Klan’s practice of blockading polling places to prevent the other party from voting?)
Rob, the trickbag with whore is that he always leave a lie hanging there to which one feel compelled to respond.
I’m usually really good. Sorry, I slipped.
Teh One is attempting a Keynesian H-Bomb – but I’m not convinced it will work. It may turn out to be a cataclysmic idea. Let’s Drink!
Damn you Rob and your pesky facts.
Gay Marriage!
“#
Comment by JHoward on 6/2 @ 9:51 am #
thor’s typically having everything all ways, Carin. He can get back to us when he wants to get serious.”
Or after the sex assignment operation.
Whichever comes first.
Hey N. O’Brain, good of you to join us while you “recharge” between Ann Coulter fantasies.
“Liberalism is as American as conservatism. Period.”
Liberalism is fascism with a thin veneer of lies.
I’m ready to accept teh ghey’s being married, if only to shut them the fuck up. I’ll just term my marriage “A True Marriage, Not Like Those Perverted by Dogs”. Or something.
So, Sammy, thor, I’ll raise a glass to your wedding.
It’s too tedious to reply to your 121, sammy, but can’t you see how incomplete your reasoning is? It’s all through the PC lens.
Wow, progress.
If only somebody would want to hatefuck me, I, too, could make a mint.
Alas, I’d just rather slink off into obscurity. Like SEK, only intentionally.
I hate.
Teh One is attempting a Keynesian H-Bomb – but I’m not convinced it will work.
Wow, progress.
Not really, I’ve probably said it three times now.
Jeff?! Long time no read. Was ist los?
Well Jeff G,
You could always try Amanda…
For her, a hatefuck might be better than none at all…
I’m just not sure there’s be enough astringent available to ever fully cleanse yourself after that one…
“s (and, oh yeah, civil rights = bad, bad, bad).”
Except that proportionally more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.
More silliness shot in the ass.
Once you read Dostoevsky it’s hard to go back to Superman comic books
Whatever. I’ve read Dostoevsky, and find myself reading more comic books now.
‘Course, they’re usually of the Watchmen/From Hell ilk, and I can’t read Batman any more since they drummed up the R.I.P. stunt, but what the hey. I’ve read Dostoevsky. I read comic books. So what?
The Democrat Party has always been the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and socialism.
a hatefuck might be better than none at all…
No, I think anyone’s better off not sleeping with angry people. The oasis of orgasm is not worth the pain of pursuit.
Jeff G., don’t concern yourself overmuch with other’s hates. Or yours, either; hates are basal human emotions what helped to evolve us to what you see now. The trick is, sublimation of hates and self-control of those pesky emotions.
Now, a good fuck sans the hate, you should never turn down.
“If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn’t their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can’t the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker’s personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?”
– Ann Coulter
I should prefer that there not be any slinkings into obscurity.
Sammy, which party had the Ku Klux Klan as it’s terrorist arm?
slavery, secession, segregation and socialism.
Yeah, but its justifications for the first three and for the last one are diametrically opposed.
Slavery and secession were defended on libertarian grounds. Read Jeff Davis’ speeches. He drank deeply of the Jeffersonian well.
Segregation likewise, although with a great deal more cognitive dissonance, as it was a libertarian justification of a deeply un-libertarian policy.
And yes, Woodrow Wilson was the fruit of both worlds, the first Southerner in the White House since Franklin Pierce and the Founding God of Progressive Government.
I read Tolstoy over 40 years ago. I hereby stand for thor’s red smudge of courage, my onions gleaming and my gulags laced.
Keep your head up, Jeff.
Regardless of what you feel like doing with your time and talent, don’t let the bastards get you down.
For values of “libertarian” that have lost all value. You cannot square a belief in personal liberty with the idea that you can forcibly confiscate the labor of others for your own benefit (or for the benefit of a third party).
Not true. They sound opposed, but amount to the same: “Group A does not deserve the fruit of their labors, therefore we will confiscate it and give it to Group B, which is more deserving.” The means of defining the groups, and of what constitutes “deserving” has shifted, but the argument has not.
Jeff G,
Don’t slink off into Obscurity…
I mean, then you’d be hangin’ with SEK…
And you should be keepin’ better company than that!
Buck up, as they say in old westerns, “Every day above ground is a good day!”…
Best Wishes to you and yours
Which always seemed to depress the miners.
They generally are. It’s just that conservatives become incredibly obtuse when you do so.
Let’s practice on this one. The key word is “had”. If you want to discuss where we were, I’ll just concede the point that the KKK and democrats were originally linked (in the South, at least) so we can move on.
Let’s focus on what party has the KKK as its terrorist arm. (Now this is the point where the cons will start saying, “You didn’t address my point! Own it! OWN IT!!â€)
So let’s take a rational (they’ll call “rational” a “code word”, or something, which makes me giggle) look at where we’re at today. Who do you think the Klan votes for today. (I ran out of HTML tags to make “today” stand out, but they’ll still miss it)
Are they still in lock-step with the Democrats, or have they, maybe, filled out new voter registration cards? We’ll, let’s see what they had to say about Obama:
As thor would say, what a delirious garment-staining dump of stupid. But I digress.
So today, people, today, which party do you think the KKK tends to favor?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ez2C4GwqE4
(now, at this point, they absolutely will not admit that a 2009 Klansman is more likely to vote Republican. You can talk until you’re blue in the face, and they will never fess up to that. Because – after all – they’re the ones that brought up the topic of the Klan in the first place. They could say, ‘Well, who do you think the black panthers vote for.’ which is a valid point. But they’ll never, ever admit that their original argument was picked apart, in any way.)
Cites?
There is one elected Grand Kleagle serving in the US Senate.
So, Sammy, the KKK loves Michael Steele?
weird
They? So bigot = classical liberal, sammy? In the wrong comments thread again, are we?
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14994#comment-728847
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14994#comment-728848
Note the refusal to concede even the most obvious point – that a 2009 Klansman is more likely to vote Republican.
Your point, sammy? I don’t see teh obtuse; I see ridicule of the blind.
You’re a fan of Google, sammy? Looky what I found in the number one position when I put racist with Democrat: Reality.
Not voting for Teh One makes you a de facto racist, and a member of the Klan.
Not promoting Sotomeyer makes you a de facto racist, and a member of the Klan too.
Note here that the Leftists most certainly do not want to discuss how a Muslim under investigation for ties to terrorists shot one soldier and killed another.
So, the argument goes?:
When the Klan was very large and very active as a terrorist organization, it was aligned with the Democrats with their approval.
When the Klan is extremely small and relatively inactive as a terrorist organization, it votes with but is hated by the Republicans.
This is the point you want the classical liberals here to cede to show their good faith? Just to be clear…
(now, at this point, they absolutely will not admit that a 2009 Klansman is more likely to vote Republican. You can talk until you’re blue in the face, and they will never fess up to that. Because – after all – they’re the ones that brought up the topic of the Klan in the first place. They could say, ‘Well, who do you think the black panthers vote for.’ which is a valid point. But they’ll never, ever admit that their original argument was picked apart, in any way.)
There’s a certain commenter here who is semi-obsessed with mentioning the KKK’s history with the Democrats. He mentions it so often I doubt anyone else even pays it any mind it this point. But great rebuttal! You’re so smart!! If only the rest of us could back down from an argument we never made.
On the other hand, I don’t think that even the Klan could have succeeded in destroying the black family and creating a crushing cycle of poverty the way liberals have.
bh – It is just a verbose way of Sammy screaming RACIST at us. Eventually, they all come around to that.
I’ll take it! And only 10 comments later! +1 for bh. bh, we could actually have a discussion. We probably wouldn’t reach agreement, but at least we could start from positions of what’s obvious and move from there. That’s more that most around here.
JD and JHoward responded 3 times without even admitting that much. So JD and JHoward, will you sign on to #167?
Yeah, seems like it, JD. It’s also funny because Sammy seems to have a great deal of anti-religious bigotry seething in his veins. Maybe someone should tell him that the Klan disliked Jewish and Catholic theologies almost as much as he does.
Shhh. Next you’re going to want me to point out to the Klan that Jesus was black.
-1 for you though, Sammy. Over the course of your commenting here, I don’t find you to be generally arguing in good faith. Hint: latching onto thor’s overly broad generalizations and vulgarity doesn’t help any.
What is black, sammy?
Note the refusal to concede even the most obvious point – that a 2009 Klansman is more likely to vote Republican.
That isn’t an obvious point at all, Sammy, if you have any evidence please link it. I would wager most actual Klansmen today are either white trash or blue collar/union types, both of which tend to vote Democrat, especially at the local and state levels.
I would quibble with the “votes with” aspect of that construct. They certainly voted against Barcky, but there is nothing to suggest the voted for Republicans. And why are we talking about this? Right. Another example of a Leftist trying to tar people with the words of some whack-jobs.
Now it would be time for Sammy to concede that the all the rapists and murderers that fill our prisons are going to vote Democrat.
Eh? Who you talking about?
And anyone who has stopped paying attention to the history of the Democrats and the Klan is a fool. The difference between the “New Black Panther Party” and the Ku Klux Klan is the color of their skins; the ideology and the party they support is identical.
A tip, sammy. Start with a valid position, one that serves something worth serving. Like a philosophy of freedom; that one really works.
Then over years confirm it’s validity. Leave no stone unturned.
Then, if you must, find like-minded advocates who understand what you’re on about.
Then, and only then, seek to label the thing. Republican, Democrat; conservative, liberal. And never toss those terms out w/o being able to define them, not to mention identifying them against the backdrop of your chosen philosophy and how they relate.
If you do that left v right thing, you’ll be rightly outed as being fundamentally useless; a tool. Next you’ll naturally find whatever philosophy you thought you held also shot full of holes. In the end you’ll have nothing to recommend your argument.
Sound familiar? Own your stuff or your stuff will own you. Which it is.
At the fear of getting a -1, I’m not saying anything on “votes with”. I have no idea. I would assume they think both parties are composed of race traitors or some other such craziness.
“Let’s focus on what party has the KKK as its terrorist arm.”
The Democrats.
Conceded. So long as you change “the all” to “most of”.
“Comment by Sammy on 6/2 @ 12:40 pm #
shouldn’t their arguments be easy to deconstruct
They generally are. It’s just that conservatives become incredibly obtuse when you do so.”
And of course, when you lose the argument, as you inevitably do, you start yelling “RACIST!!!!”.
“Who do you think the Klan votes for today”
The Democrats.
bh – “votes with” is not a good construct, as Teh One is half-black and the Klans hates them some black people. There is nothing about either party that should appeal to them beyond Barcky’s race, so I would not concede “votes with”.
NOB, you might want to give yourself a minute, and drink a glass of juice or something, after completing one of your Ann Coulter “missions” before you start posting.
Gonna sign on to #163, Sammy?
Sure, I’ll sign on to the notion that you googled “racist democrat” and gosh, what do you know, you found some. Yes, I’ll be the first to concede that racist democrats do actually exist. Is that what you’re looking for?
Speaking of google, I just had a conversation and it told me this:
Results 1 – 10 of about 3,180,000 for racist democrat
Results 1 – 10 of about 7,080,000 for racist republican
Will you concede that… I have no idea.
Here’s a news flash. I don’t think white people or republicans are more racist than people belonging to minorities. My hypothesis is that is socially unacceptable for any white men to say anything derogatory towards any other race/gender because white men disproportion hold the positions of power (C-level executives, elected officials, etc). They are perceived as being oppressive.
Minorities, OTOH, are perceived as fighting for equality when they criticize white guys.
I don’t know that there’s a hell of a lot any of us can do about those perceptions, but here’s a news flash. The people who spend all their time complaining about inequality don’t end up getting the equality they claim to seek, any more than white trash KKK end up on top. It’s the people like Powell, Obama, Rice, and Sotomayor, who put their nose to the fucking grindstone, who rise to the absolute top.
I can understand your confusion, Sammy. Give it time and introspection; it’ll pass.
JD, I was just trying to frame Sammy’s argument as a shorter point that we were to concede or not concede. It isn’t my argument.
As the Klan is now a couple thousand losers who use their racism as a way of making friends with other losers, it’s pretty much a complete irrelevancy nowadays.
Okay, gotta run, later.
Tell me you weren’t donkey punching Whoopi while felching Michael Vick when you typed that, thor.
I am phobic of public restrooms, ya homophobe.
Any minute now, President Obama is going to release a statement condemning the murder of a soldier.
Any minute now.
No he isn’t, Christopher.
I’m not trying to be a healer or anything, nor fond some compromise amongst the stronly held points of view here at PW.
But, it occurs to me that many klan members today are among the non-voting block that makes up about 50% of our society today…
Short on standing for something, but long on complaints…
Curiously a lot like the code pinkos…
I did not get that the first time I read it, Christopher. Too many asshats ’round here recently. It took him what, 6 hours for Tiller, but we are over a day for a US serviceman.
Dumbest. Argument. Ever.
The fucking left has turned calling Republicans “racist” into a fast-twitch reflex. It’s one of their standard retorts to any policy proposal. All that demonstrates is that it’s twice as common for a Republican to be called a racist as it is for a Democrat to be called a racist.
Perception and reality are oft at odds. Reverend Wright was not “fighting for equality” during his infamous sermons; he was putting forward the inferiority of whites. Sonia Sotamayor was not “fighting for equality” when she said a Latina would make better judgements than a white man; she was arguing for the inferiority of whites.
We’re more likely to here from Rev. Wright celebrating their murder.
Good catch, Rob C
Tell me you don’t fill Oprompta’s promptas with prompting, thor. It all fits now.
Rob (#200), I completely agree with everything you said. I wasn’t submitting the google results as evidence of republican racism, I was pointing out that googleing “democrat racist” and, golly, finding something isn’t exactly big news.
Yes, a statement she’s certainly going to have to explain. Since it hasn’t shown up in her actual rulings, I’m willing to consider the possibility that she let her mouth get ahead of her brain.
Oh, it wasn’t her mouth Sammy, not at all.
While in virtually the same breath asserting “there can never be a universal definition of wise.” So we are left just having to take her word for her other assertion of superior wisdom. She did say, though, what it is she believes to be the source of her confidence in her judgment: “…because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives – no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,”. Because she can, coupled with, because she must.
I was pointing out that, golly, finding something that flew in the face of right=racist stereotype isn’t exactly big news. Of course, you went with the fallacy so as to avoid the point.
Your stuff is owing you, Sammy. You can play a word game here and a misdirection there but the net result is that you promote the position opposite your own. Is that a good idea, do you think?
This idea that her mouth got ahead of her brain seems like an asspull. She was delivering a prepared speech. But, she did not have access to TOTUS. Maybe her words cease having any meaning once they pass over her lips, kind of like Teh One. Imagine had Justice Roberts said something like that.
Apocalyptic madness will flood our streets. She’s worse than Dr. Tiller!
Nope. It’s looking like she might be pro-life. Could be some fireworks ahead.
You’re right sdferr, it doesn’t show up in her rulings, but she’s totally a judicial activist and racist on the bench.
Shorter thor: Ignore the anti-constitutional record; ignore the racism. Merely trust but do not verify the confirmation.
thor-A-Prompter. Regurgitating so you don’t have to look stuff up.
I don’t know what the hell you are getting on about Sammy, as I’ve made no such claim about her. WTF is it with you anyhow?
So being racist only some of the time is alright as long as she advances the correct causes, Sammah?
Eh? Who you talking about?
And anyone who has stopped paying attention to the history of the Democrats and the Klan is a fool. The difference between the “New Black Panther Party†and the Ku Klux Klan is the color of their skins; the ideology and the party they support is identical.
The same person who mentioned it upthread.
I understand what you’re saying. The fact that Democrats have shifted from terrorizing blacks to herding them like cattle while attempting to saddle Republicans with their previous conduct just shows what kind of dishonest shitheads Democrats are.
But the idea that these days certain David Duke types are more inclined to favor the party that opposes social policies like affirmative action seems reasonably obvious. It is what it is. Where the dishonesty on the left comes into play is in utilizing this natural byproduct of a two party system to delegitimize honest policy convictions and essentially cut off debate. The real irony is that the lunatic fringe on the left is educated and mainstreamed and yet liberal idiots have to root around trailer parks for phantom right wing crazies like pigs looking for truffles. Tells you all you need to know about how bankrupt the left is.
EpistemologyThe philosophical pursuit that dare not speak it’s name. You want quagmires? Here’s where you’ll get your quagmires.Sorry. So you support her confirmation?
Sammy – Did you support Chief Justic Roberts? If yes, Would you have supported him had he said what Sotomayor said? If no, why not?
Also, where do you get this idea that her mouth got ahead of her brain?
“My hypothesis is that is socially unacceptable for any white men to say anything derogatory towards any other race/gender because white men disproportion hold the positions of power (C-level executives, elected officials, etc). They are perceived as being oppressive.
Minorities, OTOH, are perceived as fighting for equality when they criticize white guys.”
This mindset is the unfortunate result of a bill of goods that has been sold the largely apathic public, through both academia, the public school system (K-12), and the disproportionate slant of the MSM; and as I mentioned earlier in the thread, non-thinkers are most often aot to fall back onto mouthing the positions of the “smart guys” in the media and the classroom when asked about a topic they really haven’t given much though to…
It is a mindset that empowers the professional race-baiters in society, the body politic, and the MSM. It empowers people such as Jerimiah Right as well as the KKK…
And if white men hold the reigns of power, disproprtionately, how is it that community groups such as ACORN have been so successful at “mau-mauing the flak catchers” as our most erudite leader has phrased it. How were their demonstrations able to intimidate large financial institutions into making terrible business decisions..?
Put simply, they knew that they would either not recieve a fair treatment by the major media, or under porrly written statutes had the power to damage that company’s business by holding undue regulatory sway over their future allowable business purview..?
For example, if it was such a great idea to loan money, at ridiculous rates that would ultimately be disastrous, to folks who would most likely not be able to pay it back..? Why would the government have to mandate this if it was such a moneymaking proposition?
I’m not trying to change the subject nor hi-jack the thread; just a little food for thought about the differences between the apparent and actual positions of power and power structure…
The unfortunate truth is that an ass like Rev Wright can pollute young and/or simple minded folks daily, in a way that I would be sent to jail over. And, ACORN can engage in sketch accounting practices and actually be involved in voter fraud in more than 10 states, and still be eligible to recieve government money. And jusdge Sotomayor can openly make statements that would simply disqualify any white male out of hand, and instead of walking back from them, have members of congress and the MSM explain to me why it’s ok for her to believe that…
Who really holds the positions of power…
I don’t know what the hell you are getting on about JD, as I’ve made no such claim about her. WTF is it with you anyhow?
Oh, and shoe me the rulings motivated by racism, JD.
Why should I support her confirmation Sammy? Do you? Why should I oppose her? Do you?
I know next to nothing about her, having read one speech and a couple of rump summaries of her decisions. Am I supposed to support her or oppose her on the mere basis of who has nominated her? Or who has jumped out to denigrate her? Let’s read some more. Then let’s think some more. Or are you too impatient for that?
In the meantime, some people might like to have a civil conversation about her ideas and what implications those ideas may have. Or even, god forbid, the reasonable question whether a demonstration of her judicial temperament and philosophical positions make possible any prediction at all as to her future holdings once on the bench.
She thought out, wrote, and spoke racist words. So you are alright with putting a racist on the Supreme Court, because her racism is not readily apparent to you in her rulings. Ergo, racists are alright as long as they are only racist during accepted times.
Billy “the Kid” Ayers will have his due one day…
In a transcendental way, of course…
Milkshake..?
JD,
The sad truth is that it’s ok to be a racist, as long as the right folks are being oppressed…
I did, actually. It’s maybe not who I would have chosen, but I had no cause to doubt his qualifications. Maybe a bit of a fast track to Chief Justice, but nothing I’d take to the streets over. If he’d said what Sotomayor said, I’d certainly want him to explain it (as I want her to), but I’d take his rulings as stronger evidence than his speeches.
thor…
Somehow, I knew that was you…
Aren’t vanilla beans brown anyway..?
BEANIST!
Sammy – What else could those words have meant?
Calm down, whor. She’s nominated to replace Souter, ferchrissake.
By the way Sammy,
When I quoted you in #221, I realized that you were saying it was only perception, and did not say you agreed with that particular mindset…
It’s just a sore subject with me, having lived in black neighborhoods most of my life and belonging to diverse organizations like the US Navy…
Indeed, where I live near NYC is the most lily white area I’ve ever been in in my life…
It’s full of off the boat Micks, Polacks, Jews, Russians, and Eye-ties though; does that count as diversity too..?
Bob – you know damn good and well that diversity only involves certain privileged groups, and diversity of thought is frowned upon.
Sammy – This really gets down to judicial philosophy. How does he race, culture, or gender have anything to do with her ability to be a good jurist?
Hey, you know who voted against him? Barack Obama. Voted against Alito too, he did. And who could forget his Janice Rogers Brown stylings? Following Dear President’s lead, I don’t see why any Republican should vote for cloture on So So.
I’ve been called worse…
I couldn’t care less if they howl at the moon and practice witchcraft when the robes are off. If it doesn’t show up in the rulings, it doesn’t show up in the ruling.
And go read the speech. She’s making the point that the makeup of the bench matters. For example, the law might use terms like “reasonable”. 9 male judges might have an idea of what’s reasonable for a woman, any woman might be able to clearly explain why they have no idea.
As evidence, Sotomayor points out that, “Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.” I’m not saying that 9 white men are incapable of (dare I say) empathizing with a woman who’s being harassed to determine if she’s hypersensitive, or if her male co-workers are making the workplace a living hell. In 1927, 9 white men were able to do that, but diversity on the bench increases the odds that someone will have some clue about what they’re really looking at in certain cases.
Damn JD,
And here I was thinkon’ that I’d become all cosmopolitan and such…
I mean, the attention my accent gets makes me a minority amongst these New Yawk-uhz…
Duke started as a Democrat, and no one batted an eye. He lost, but no one batted an eye.
When he ran as a Republican, he became national news. And the Republican party campaigned against him. “Vote for the crook; it’s important.” ISTR that while he won the primary (for a state congressional district), he lost the general election against someone who had been indicted.
Twenty years later, in the same state where Duke became famous, the Republicans ran Bobby Jindal. The Democrats ran ads — based on the market — that highlighted his Catholicism or his dark skin. Which party was appealing to the bigotries of the Klan?
Klansmen aren’t all that opposed to “affirmative action” or other racial preferences so much as they’re opposed as to who gets the preferences. They’re sure as hell not opposed to modern “multiculturalism” in that it assumes races are better off isolated from one another. And, hell, ISTR a lefty who interviewed a white supremacist admitting the arguments were persuasive — largely because they’re the same arguments made for the various minorities by the left.
Are there white racists who vote Republican? Sure.
Are white racists naturally at home among Republicans? No. Not in the least.
That was 9 men, too.
Pablo – Great link. It seems as though race and a good life story are only important when running for POTUS and when he nominates someone for the SC. Seems ideology trumps all.
Could you figure that out, Sammy? As well as a woman, or would a woman have a better idea of how men are treating a women? I could figure it out, given the evidence. And the thing is, the SCOTUS generally isn’t looking at evidence very often. Findings of fact are done in the lower courts, by and large. SCOTUS is about the proper application of the law.
“…stronger evidence than her speeches.”
Stronger evidence of a conditional and circumstance which will no longer obtain? Why don’t you think that the ruling and opinion writing of a judge on an inferior bench are rife with difficulties as predictors of the future decisions of that judge once raised to the highest bench? Granted that they may be decent evidence of a writing style. They may be first evidence of a judge’s ability to examine honestly and forthrightly the best case put forward on both sides of an issue, a demonstration of a willingness to come fully to grips with those best presentation of argument, or contrariwise, an unwillingness if such should be the case and that judge shows a propensity to sweep strong argument under the rug. As to the question of decisions to be cast on the highest court, where no appeal is possible, however, where the restraint of the possibility of appeal is removed, it seems as though you’ld want to see how the candidate thinks, what their principles and philosophical positions are, should they have them and if not, think on what that too would indicate, no?
Essentialisms in race or sex designations are worth less than nothing. No less, Sammy, than the lack of evidence for god you are continually decrying. Again, what is black?
Because what someone says — in a prepared speech — isn’t much of a window into what they believe.
Hey, has Baracky denounced the murder of William Long yet? He’s been dead for about 31 hours now. Anyone want in on a pool for when we’ll hear something from his Commander in Chief about his murder? I’m gonna take never, so you can pick anything else you like.
So you’re promoting gender as a primary factor of constitutional rulings of law, sammy?
As a thing standing alone Rob, I suppose I’d tend to agree, though in general, I’d opt to allow an initial assumption of her sincerity on the question. The thing is, once written, she’ll either defend it as something she believes under questioning or not.
“Much of the left’s hate speech bears greater similarity to a psychological disorder than to standard political discourse. The hatred is blinding, producing logical contradictions that would be impossible to sustain were it not for the central element faith plays in the left’s new religion. The basic tenet of their faith is this: Maybe they were wrong on facts and policies, but they are good and conservatives are evil. You almost want to give it to them. It’s all they have left.”
-Ann Coulter
“Speaking of google, I just had a conversation and it told me this:
Results 1 – 10 of about 3,180,000 for racist democrat
Results 1 – 10 of about 7,080,000 for racist republican
Will you concede that… I have no idea.”
I’ll concede that Democrats lie.
That explains the disparity.
Comment by thor on 6/2 @ 1:50 pm #
Look, whore is back.
Playground closed?
I am curious how Teh One and his political people will walk this statement back, and how far the media will go to provide cover for them. Really, how do you walk that back? I guess she could say “I made a racist statement but am not a racist” or “I was a racist but am no longer one”. Simply saying it was taken out of context or that it was misunderstood should not fly.
“Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.â€
When was gender discrimination made illegal, Sammy?
So some of you here practice law – let me run this past you. Is it possible that a person can have beliefs, even strong personal beliefs, about what they wish the law was, or how they wished society worked. And then, those same people can set those personal beliefs aside, put on a robe, hear a case, and make decisions based on the written law, not their own personal ideals?
Isn’t that the definition of a judge, or am I just naive? Are the only qualified judges people who don’t really feel strongly about anything?
No, I’m saying judicial ability being equal, a diverse bench will make better decisions than a homogeneous bench.
I’m saying judicial ability being equal, a diverse bench will make better decisions than a homogeneous bench.
You really can’t see the glaring contradiction there, can you?
Isn’t the very definition of “better decisions” the thing under question here (or in Sotomayor’s presentation anyhow)? Round in circles we seem to go, no?
“The fucking left has turned calling Republicans “racist†into a fast-twitch reflex. It’s one of their standard retorts to any policy proposal.”
See my #183.
“All that demonstrates is that it’s twice as common for a Republican to be called a racist as it is for a Democrat to be called a racist.”
Despite the facts.
“The playground is not safe for you anymore.”
Especially with you hanging around, whore.
I thought you had a restraining order.
Problem is, Sammy, she stated, in no uncertain terms, that her race and gender made her a better jurist than a white male. Does one’s race or gender allow them to understand the application of the law better than another?
No. Equal judicial ability isn’t equal experience, and experience has some bearing on terms like “reasonable” which (again, I’m no lawyer) seem to abound in law. I could imaging one judge saying, “I think X is reasonable.” and another judge saying, “That’s because you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
So, sammy is arguing that her race and gender do make her a better jurist.
JD, you’re so thick. There’s a lot of nuance the follows, so pay attention closely. Really closely.
Now for the quiz. Am I saying that a bench that’s 100% Latina women would make better decisions then a bench that’s 100% white men?
“No, I’m saying judicial ability being equal, a diverse bench will make better decisions than a homogeneous bench.”
Then you truly are a moron, sammy.
So then, asking
we’ll find that definition in the statement Sotomayor borrows from Resnik: “to judge is an exercise of power”? And there is no pinning it down, no knowing it as anything other than a dynamic process of the interchange of power from one person to another. Trace the power, trace the judge. “Better schmetter, Justice? Ha!”, we might say, the important thing is, “who can kill you or have you killed”.
“Now for the quiz. Am I saying that a bench that’s 100% Latina women would make better decisions then a bench that’s 100% white men?”
Only if the “latina” women were openly racist.
Do you ever get dizzy? So, she is no better, even though she claims to be, but the Bench will be better even though in your opinion, she is no better?
I don’t know what the hell you are getting on about Sammy, as I’ve made no such claim about her. WTF is it with you anyhow?
I’m done with Sammy, myself.
“I could imaging one judge saying, “I think X is reasonable.†and another judge saying, “That’s because you have no idea what you’re talking about.â€
Can you imagine a judge making a decision based on the fucking law?
SBP – Did you follow that Sammy was alright with a Supreme Court nominee that barked at the moon and was a racist so long as they did not do so on the bench?
Ding ding ding ding!!! JD finally gets it. When you read the whole damn speech, that’s exactly what she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Broader experiences make a better bench. Otherwise, I suppose, we could settle for 1 supreme court judge.
Can you imagine laws that say “reasonable”, and leave the definition of “reasonable” to the discretion of judges and juries, and we put 12 people (instead of 1) on a jury for exactly that fucking reason?
You do realize that you’ve arrived at Irrefutable Dogma at this point, don’t you?
Regards,
Ric
Broader experiences make a better bench. Otherwise, I suppose, we could settle for 1 supreme court judge.
Then it’s a good thing we’ve decided to define experience to mean gender and ethnicity. Until we have a transgendered albino Philippino dwarf on the court, we can never be satisfied that it will be diverse enough.
I’ve been around courtrooms, Sammy, and I hate to break it to you but the two shoddiest, most sexist, and most legally abusive decisions I’ve ever witnessed were made by a female court master. She was appealed twice, neither ruling completely stood, and in one instance a female judge subsequently contradicted herself by invoking gender neutrality and then ruling in part against the male plaintiff because he was male.
The fix was in and everybody knew it. Both attorneys predicted it and they argued on or around it, respectively, so prevalent was the gender bias built into that system. The public later accused that judge of a violation of the state’s constitution. There is one entire branch of the court system built upon the profit inherent in a presumption of gender imbalance.
It’s kinda ironic to argue in favor of female bits absolutely needing bench time in the highest court when legal gender imbalance in decisions already runs so heavily in favor of similar bits, at least in one branch of the justice system. Justice is anything but blind…and you tacitly argue it should continue to be sighted whether you realize it or not.
Do you suppose Sotomayer is immune to the whim and aims of some of the largest lobbies in the land? Is her sensitivity to Progressive Issues — advocates of said issues so thoroughly recommend her, after all — not a factor? Aren’t you promoting more of that bias? When do we admit we’re promoting the NOW’s platform to the SCOTUS?
Should there be any connection between a judge’s gender and the vigor of their constitutionality, Sammy? If not, why did Sotomayer plainly advocate the judiciary making policy if she has no intent to herself influence policy…one assumes on the basis of the features that distinguish her from white males?
And why do you consistently contradict yourself as you did in 257?
So, Supreme Court Justice Bernadine Dohrn would be a good thing? Because of the diversity of experience? And why is DC Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown a bad thing? She’s very diverse.
Then you are safely in the idiot category, because her broader experience that she claims will make her a better jurist, not Bench, are that she is a Latina woman (redundant).
Not necessarily restricted to experience alone Sammy, for she also said:
Wrong. We have put one person on all juries, Sammy, and we call him or her jury nullification. A single juror on the SCOTUS has no such authority. Not that that serves whatever point you’re trying to make, but there you have it.
Except for when that fucking Uncle Thomas was nominated. Being a poor, bootstrapping black guy was decidedly unhelpful.
“No, I’m saying judicial ability being equal, a diverse bench will make better decisions than a homogeneous bench.”
Does all things being equal mean that the O’Connor paradigm holds; that a wise old man and a wise old woman judge should reach the same conclusion on a point of law..?
If so than I would admit that a more diverse court’s rulings would be more socially palatable in todays allegedly post racial society; where minority exceptionalism and absolute moral authority seems to be the guiding principle that lays thinly veiled beneath the surface…
I still say that if folks put American first, abd their desired ethnic identity separate, and actually started living their lives as if that were the over-arching identity group in this country, we’d be a whole lot better off…
Except for that stupid nigger what didn’t get programmed right. And that one. And this here spic. And probably this beaner too. But people who know who their people are and act like it? We need that kind of diversity on the bench.
What are you smoking, Bob?
This has nothing to do with experience, it is ideology, pure and simple.
VDH wrote pretty aptly today on the crazed incoherency of race teaching/dealing we live with.
I agree with conditions that a diverse bench can be better than a homogeneous one, but I disagree completely that the best way to measure the diversity is to check the color of the skin and whether they wear a skirt or not.
JHo’s first law of constitutionality states that it’s a bad idea if it ends up seizing up the entire damn country because it never ever should have been under in the public domain or even public consideration in the first place. Witness race and gender vis a vis public policy.
Witness every state social/domestic program known to man. Every last one of the fuckers ends up wrecking everything it touches, costing impossible sums, and forcing herds of politicians and lawyers to make proportionally huge sums sucking the life out of everything.
Life is unfair. Why in the name of heaven would we think we could change that?
I dunno JD,
Maybe my Lucky’s are wrapped too tight or something…
I just think the best measure of a potential judges fitness is their ability to interpret tha law instead of “write legislation”, like Madame Sotomayor seems to think…
All that other blather was simply about how racially sensitive our post-racial society has become since Obammy’s election…
Maybe I should have another drink instead…
“No, I’m saying judicial ability being equal, a diverse bench will make better decisions than a homogeneous bench.â€
Except for those fucking conservatives, right sammy?
Do you understand what reasonable means, Sammy? Because if men and women or different races can’t reason together, then how can you deny racial or sexual discrimination?
SBP – Did you follow that Sammy was alright with a Supreme Court nominee that barked at the moon and was a racist
Nah, I don’t think I got that far.
Got home from work, saw another thread full of Sambot drivel, and decided to just ‘Hammer him.
I don’t think Sammy is stupid, precisely. He’s just wilfully ignorant. However, I’m not going to waste any more of my time on his education.
Yo, Sambot: if you ever get tired of being a clueless fuck, you might want to go here and start reading.
You’ve been lied to since birth, Sambot. It’s up to you whether you want to do something about it by reading something other than the regurgitated pap you’ve had shoveled into your head in school.
What would a SCIENTIST do?
Now there we agree. I’ll also remind that Alito said:
So what’s Alito saying here. It makes no difference? He makes a better decision, a worse decision, a different (but somehow no better or worse) decision?
I have to say that Makewi’s comment about the transtesticled albino Phillipino dwarf was the comment of the day …
Actually, I think it’s very important to have a conservative viewpoint on the bench, so long as there’s 4 or less (just kidding).
Said differently, I think different philosophies are important, and diversity of viewpoints is important to keep one particular view from going overboard. I hope the justices have debates and question each others judicial foundations, but again, maybe I’m naive.
He appears to be saying that he can’t help but be prejudiced by his experiences. I don’t see him making a value judgement on it either way.
What are the inherent physiological and cultural differences that make her a better jurist Sammy? Face it, the Left would not go these kinds of mental gymnastics and contortions had an evil conservative said the exact same thing. They would just scream SEXIST RACIST MISOGYNISTIC TOOL OF THE PATRIARCHY !!!! And that would be the end of that nomination.
It would be useful Sammy if you could provide a link to the entirety of Alito’s Testimony so that we could see the pull quote in full context.
Is a diversity of viewpoints important to keep one Amendment from going overboard, Sammy? Secondly, didn’t you just allude to the SCOTUS’ safety in numbers? So who gives a crap if there’s only one terribly strict constitutional authority on the thing?
Or was that your point?
He’s saying that one can draw on their experiences and those of their acquaintances in coming to an understanding of an issue. What he’s not saying is that being an Italian man makes him a better judge.
The point of judging, Pablo, is to transform issues into decisions. It’s an art more than a science, actually.
Tou know what is truly sad? We are having a better conversation about this with a troll than the Senate will have with an actual nominee.
I haven’t found the entire thing, but here’s a longer excerpt:
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/26/sotomayor/permalink/48ec0b6a16a292dad64a325c904ce917.html
Only if you turn them into the right decisions, JHoward. Some people just don’t make the grade.
Of course they would. Partisan hacks on both sides. It may or may not be the end of the nomination (Clarence Thomas made it through)
Oh. See what he says right after that first paragraph Sammy quoted? Right where that ellipse is?
There’s only one truth, no matter what your “viewpoints” or narrative or whatever postmodernist crap you want to vomit up. Being Hispanic or white or Italian or man or woman or anything doesn’t change that. You don’t get some magical special understanding of truth by having a certain ethnic background or gender.
Did he say anything like that Sotomayor quote? That was the predicate JD mentioned that would evoke that reaction.
Good catch, Pablo. That stands in direct contrast to the nominee who thinks policy is to be created at the appellate court.
Sammy – Thomas barely made it. Do you think Roberts would have? Don’t lie.
Here’s a fuller context. The point of the exercise Coburn leads Alito through is explained in Coburn’s introductory remarks:
Wildly OT: Check out the wackiness. Sorry, Huffpo link.
oh. There’s a lull, bh, so I think OT is okey dokey. Here is a site I found on the internet.
I love that site, hf! Have you come across this one yet?
bh – I am embarassed to say I saw that live. After the 15th “you have got to be fucking kidding me”, Better Half came in to see what in the world I was watching. Human train wreck, it was.
My favorite fun sites are fuckyoupenguin and hotchickswithdouchebags
that’ll get me through the rest of the day I think
JD, I hate myself but now I positively have to watch it tonight. Thanks for fuckyoupenguin and hotchicks, I dig them already. Entering RSS reader now.
I’m sure everyone must’ve seen this classic by now, but just in case. Be sure to check out the “fashion” page.
If someone told me happyfeet was the author of fuckyoupenguin it would not surprise me in the least.
Here’s what the author of LF said about the subject:
“Obama and the Democratic Party indisputably share the broad outlines of her approach to racial issues. But rather than calmly defend her, they hide behind the robes of the first Latina Supreme Court pick and shout “bigot” at anyone who fails to throw rose petals at her feet.
And that is pretty much what liberals always do when it comes to race. They invite everyone to a big, open-minded conversation, but the moment anyone disagrees with them, they shout “racist” and force the dissenters to figuratively don dunce caps and renounce their reactionary views. Then, when the furor dies down, they again offer up grave lamentations about the lack of “honest dialogue.” It’s a mixture of Kabuki dance and whack-a-mole…
…I’m willing to concede, happily, that liberals aren’t cartoonish villains for believing that certain preferred minorities deserve special treatment under the law. Unfortunately, too many liberals are unwilling to offer the same courtesy in return.”
Pretty well said, at least I think so…
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg2-2009jun02,0,4435832.column
Enjoy…
That’s new to me, SBP. That’s possibly the greatest thing evah!
I’ve sometimes wondered if that’s thor.
bh – usually I would tell yolu that it will be an hour of your life that you cannot get back, but alas I cannot tell you that. Their overt schizo lunacy made for a compelling watch.
That was quite the apt description above of the honest and frank discussion the Dems want to have on race. They honestly want to call you a racist for disagreeing with them.
linguistics … with latter-day Jamaican examples
Holyfuckingshit SBP. How in the hell did you find something so deliciously bizarre? OMFG
WTF happyfeet. Please to explain to us what led you to that page.
I have been in the car waaaaaaay too long today. I have listened to CD’s from Bush, Live, Staind, Josh Groban,The BoDeans, Bocelli, Toby Keith, and Live again. They are singing about past perfect tense. What is that for? The boys in Live, I enjoy, even if it is a bit dated.
When I read that hf, it made me wonder if that isn’t a colonial remnant. Using the “Please to” before the imperative might be a way of stressing deference.
“Please to sit down” equals “Sit down, please”, only without any potentially dangerous suspense over whether or not proper manners will be used.
Ya know, the pic at LATFH, the one of the douchebag chick at the beach, with the ammo belt around her waist, holding her muffin top in?
I bet she’s all for regulating gun ownership.
Dudes,
Those sites are awesome…
I think I soiled myself I was laughing so hard at the, “look at the effin’ hipster” and “Hot chicks with douchebags”…
The eff-you-penguin wasn’t bad either…
But what’s up with the peter pan guy? Is it a parody or what..?
I don’t remember who pointed me to the Peter Pan home page — it’s one of the classics from the early days of the web.
As far as I know the guy is 100% serious.
I’m glad (although also somewhat disturbed) to see that he’s found a willing woman since the last time I was there.
There really IS somebody out there for everybody, I guess, and before the Web he’d probably have never have found his. I mean, where would you go in real life to meet a woman who was into that kind of thing?
Those sites have provided me with hours of amusement, but not nearly as much as this place. That Petey Pan dude, wow. Just, wow.
I am still kind of scratching my head at that circular reasoning about diversity and the Bench. Live has a lot of angst – why do I suspect that the extent of their troubles were arguing with their parents over which German sedan they got to drive?
Quick Way to distinguish
Sinusoidal from Harmonic Motion
Very educational site guinsPen…
You know, it gave an antirely new insight on the combind sinusodial and harmonic motion problem…
Indeed, my eyeballs are still jiggling!
oh my screaming at drudge:
?
I like sinusodial motion
are you an american citizen inquirering minds want to know
JD,
I’ll bet you never thought that physics could be so…captivating…
Frank Schaeffer is another example of something I learned growing up in ‘born-again’ churches:
The worst sinners are usually PK’s or MK’s. It’s a shame how they tarnish the good their parent’s do.
[…] he’d like to rape*. The conservative blogosphere, not expecting this sort of story to start appearing before, say, October of 2011, reacted with a snarl; joined in by several liberal members of the […]
[…] he’d like to rape*. The conservative blogosphere, not expecting this sort of story to start appearing before, say, October of 2011, reacted with a snarl; joined in by several liberal members of the […]
[…] he’d like to rape*. The conservative blogosphere, not expecting this sort of story to start appearing before, say, October of 2011, reacted with a snarl; joined in by several liberal members of the […]
Diazepam ativan effects….
Order diazepam with master card. Diazepam….