tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post7510597659543798251..comments2024-03-19T08:42:45.690-04:00Comments on The Delaware Libertarian: Comment Rescue: Noman and the things we should all be denouncingSteven H. Newtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-31874609369113863102009-12-16T09:24:05.036-05:002009-12-16T09:24:05.036-05:00It was very interesting for me to read that post. ...It was very interesting for me to read that post. Thanx for it. I like such topics and everything connected to them. I would like to read a bit more soon.<br />Alex<br /><a href="http://www.jammer-store.com" rel="nofollow">Phone blocker</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-21600404499643998282009-12-16T07:11:17.822-05:002009-12-16T07:11:17.822-05:00Interesting post as for me. It would be great to r...Interesting post as for me. It would be great to read a bit more concerning that theme. Thanx for giving this info.<br />Sexy Lady<br /><a href="http://www.secret-agent.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">UK escorts</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-90210774607544398122009-04-11T20:25:00.000-04:002009-04-11T20:25:00.000-04:00"nice knee pads sweetie"Cut from the same cloth, e..."nice knee pads sweetie"<BR/><BR/>Cut from the same cloth, eh, anonni?<BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-72961900396635817742009-04-11T15:37:00.000-04:002009-04-11T15:37:00.000-04:00"Jason is a warrior for the cause and that isn't a..."Jason is a warrior for the cause and that isn't always pretty, but I admire and respect his tenacity and passion." <BR/><BR/>nice knee pads sweetie.<BR/><BR/>as always with the left, the ends justify the means.<BR/><BR/>anonniAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-61792708967247747162009-04-08T10:05:00.000-04:002009-04-08T10:05:00.000-04:00However, until Burris' post, I can't recall one DE...<I>However, until Burris' post, I can't recall one DE blogger wishing he could harm another DE blogger. You can try to soften that any way you want, but there it is.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh please. You're a friggin' regular commenter and acolyte of the site that wanted to have republicans rounded up and SHOT. And you stress over Burris being angry and wanting to slug Jason?<BR/><BR/>Have you got a "case."<BR/><BR/>Steve's 8:32 is the perfect antidote to your continuing nonsense.Hubehttp://colossus.mu.nunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-41578059973232279022009-04-08T09:45:00.000-04:002009-04-08T09:45:00.000-04:00Hi Steve,I am not defending Jason's rhetoric as he...Hi Steve,<BR/><BR/>I am not defending Jason's rhetoric as he is more than capable of doing that himself. Jason is a warrior for the cause and that isn't always pretty, but I admire and respect his tenacity and passion. But he is hardly a bully; he doesn't run away or else he would have folded his tent long ago. I am not sure what you are referring to in regards to "teacher is around to run to his defense."<BR/><BR/>Name calling and profanity are part the DE blogosphere. It isn't my style, and I rarely indulge in either (other than to call republicans "repubs" and for some "goat" humor), though I have certainly been the target of it many times.<BR/><BR/>However, until Burris' post, I can't recall one DE blogger wishing he could harm another DE blogger. You can try to soften that any way you want, but there it is. I hope that does not become a regular occurrence in the DE blogosphere.<BR/><BR/>The fact that you feel that you want to slug people that are "consistently and patently offensive" to you is not a "a deep character flaw" in my book. But if you were to openly express that desire as part of your day-to-day life or regularly wish it in your blog, I'd wonder. Most people outgrow that between grade school and high school. <BR/><BR/>But "slugging" Jason wasn't what Burris originally wrote, now was it? You didn't call it you saw it (literally); you called it as you wished it was (interpretively).<BR/><BR/>The problem we face as a society is not people silently wishing that they could slug someone; it is people wishing that they could kill someone and then acting on those feelings with guns. With freedom comes responsibility, and even though people have the right to call others to arms, it is not necessarily the responsible thing to do.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I don't write off anybody, per se. I just don't respect or lend credence to the political judgement of people who label themselves as republicans. People who say they support fiscal responsibility, freedom, equal rights, small government, peace, and democracy but remain repubs are either not paying attention, in deep denial, hopelessly optimistic, are lying, or they don't really care. <BR/><BR/>I don't equate one's political party affiliation with one's humanity. Many repubs are wonderful human beings, just misguided.<BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-38709058610970705482009-04-07T23:33:00.000-04:002009-04-07T23:33:00.000-04:00Last sentence in that comment got inadvertently mo...Last sentence in that comment got inadvertently moved; should appear after sentence referring to my father.Steven H. Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-75529807045022480682009-04-07T23:32:00.000-04:002009-04-07T23:32:00.000-04:00A1Re; the Burris comment--bad taste and posturing,...A1<BR/>Re; the Burris comment--bad taste and posturing, you betcha.<BR/><BR/>I don't know about you, but I've been mad enough to punch somebody in the mouth for what they said, and why didn't I?<BR/><BR/>Sometimes because I knew it was not behavior my father would have approved of.<BR/><BR/>The whining squeamishness of folks who have now gotten to the point where you can't tell somebody off with even metaphorical personal violence--but it has been OK with everybody to have jason repeatedly characterizing Dave Burris as a <I>fatass piece of human garbage</I>--is patently offensive to me.<BR/><BR/>Disingenuous my ass. I called it exactly as I saw it.<BR/><BR/>jason is not a deep-thinking political provacateur; he's a playground bully who gets off his shots in relative safety because teacher is around to run to his defense.<BR/><BR/>I'm genuinely sorry you feel that necessary.<BR/><BR/>And if the fact that I've also wanted to slug people who are consistently and patently offensive to me and mine causes me to be labeled as having a deep character flaw in your book--well, I'm OK with that, given that you are prone to writing off millions of people you've never met, based purely on political party identifications.<BR/><BR/>Other times because I knew the individual would swear out charges and that I'd lose.Steven H. Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-10101944695638426522009-04-07T22:21:00.000-04:002009-04-07T22:21:00.000-04:00Steve,I appreciate your perspective, particularly ...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your perspective, particularly your take on Rev. Wright as you summarized.<BR/><BR/>But I am going to criticize the last part of your post regarding Burris' statement to Jason "You should thank your God there are laws protecting you from me right now and that I follow those laws."<BR/><BR/>You're indulging in classic spinning when you say "What Dave essentially said is: You made me so angry that I really want to punch you out, but the law deters me from doing so."<BR/><BR/>Horse hockey. He didn't say that at all.<BR/><BR/>Burris meant what he said in that post and he was "really comfortable with all of it" even the next day. Yes, he tried to clarify that particular statement after he was called on it by me, but that whole post revealed a pretty disturbing personality. <BR/><BR/>You can try to spin it to fit whatever preconceived notions that you want to have about him, but you're being very disingenuous to do so. The man is a writer, he chose his own words, and he stands by them. You don't need to be his apologist.<BR/><BR/>Besides, if you can't see the irony of a right wing blogger wishing he could cause personal harm to a left wing blogger for writing a post about right wingers stirring up violence, you're missing something delicious.<BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-25265769496433690522009-04-07T21:15:00.000-04:002009-04-07T21:15:00.000-04:00Steve: i agree with most everything you have writt...Steve: i agree with most everything you have written as well. This left right paradigm is what is destroying this country. The Labeling and those who label themselves have a built in bias that prevents them from critical thinking.<BR/><BR/>Obama's bankster zombie banks, his pick of Geithner and his lies and distortions is not good for this country. I agree with Krugman and Stigletz. There was no reason to give the banks a bail out, there are only about 5 of them in serious trouble. Geithner is part of the problem and cannot be the solution. They are not going to regulate the banksters, they are trying to shore up the ponzi schemers, and are not telling the american people the truth. Now over at DL....to hold an opinon like that, means to them...he/she is a republican and therefore their opinion not worthy.<BR/><BR/>These are "liberals" in the truest sense....they are middle of the road democrats. They support their party, and will rarely ever expose the weaknesses in that party.<BR/><BR/>I think Eric Holder letting Stevens go...was a great miscarriage of justice.Don Seigleman was set up and jailed for Karl Roves lies....but Holder hasnt come to his aid.<BR/><BR/>Obamas going deeper in Afganistan his continuing to spy on american people, he has never recinded the Patriot Act or restored Habeus Corpus...these are the signs that his is a president of change....so far, his "change" has been small things, or big want to do's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-31944818830213978012009-04-07T20:06:00.000-04:002009-04-07T20:06:00.000-04:00While agreeing with almost everything you posted h...While agreeing with almost everything you posted here; I still would advise a bit of caution drawing conclusions from Obama's DOJ backing previous DOJ determinations in preexisting cases presently in the Federal Judiciary Docket. There are sound reasons why a newly elected President should not come into office as destroyer of the previous Administration; and why new appointees at the DOJ should attempt a semblance of continuity in positions from the past, which are presently being adjudicated. It also bears noting that the Executive Branch should not be in the business of investigating the previous presidential administration's actions, on its own initiative alone. That would only assure the future will bring us outrageous partisanship when a different party took control of the White House. It is Congress' duty to investigate the travesties of the Bush Administration.<BR/><BR/>As to the DOJ's embrace of the Bush DOJ's previously filed positions in ongoing Federal Court trials; the litmus test should be whether the Obama DOJ appeals cases decided in opposition to those positions. Judge John D. Bates', April 2, 2009, <A HREF="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/us-reply-re-bagram-2-20-09.pdf" REL="nofollow">Memorandum Opinion</A>, holding that some detainees held at the US military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, have a right to habeas corpus appeals to their detentions in the Federal Court system, strikes me as an excellent test case. If the Obama DOJ appeals this decision, then they damn themselves for this act, but if they instead do not appeal it, they have allowed the Judicial Branch to do its job properly, without interference from the Executive Branch.pdsahttp://delusive.addpdg.org/noreply@blogger.com