OK, gee, I guess I must have been completely wrong about the Sussex County Community Organized Regiment. They are obviously gearing up to bring squirrel guns and poison gas to the polls in order to stage an armed revolt to retake the Indian River Bridge from the dark forces (did I say, "dark"? bad racist person) of the police state.
jason, boy genius, has braved personal injury to bring us the hideous evidence that SCCOR is ... is ... planning to engage in political activities, and has ... has ... chacterized such activities as a fight!!!!!!
I'm typing slowly because I'm using my dialing finger to call the ATF, the TSA, the FBI, the CIA, and Nancy Pelosi to warn them.
Here's the deadly evidence so that you, too, will understand that the savants have seen all, told all with regard to this threat to the American (liberal/progressive) way of life [emphasis added by the Friends of Humanity]:
There is a term for the intellectual acuity it requires to take this message and turn it--as nemski explicitly does in the comments section--into evidence of violent intent. Have you ever heard someone say, "If he was twice as smart he'd be a moron"? The term for such a person is Less-on.
On a serious note: Anonone will be by soon, to explain to me that this is just jason's opinion, that he has every right to his opinion, and that it is wrong of me to call bullshit on his continuing attempts to pretend that there is a violent group organizing in Sussex County.
After all, if PACs are legal, even people with political views jason doesn't like will have them.
jason, boy genius, has braved personal injury to bring us the hideous evidence that SCCOR is ... is ... planning to engage in political activities, and has ... has ... chacterized such activities as a fight!!!!!!
I'm typing slowly because I'm using my dialing finger to call the ATF, the TSA, the FBI, the CIA, and Nancy Pelosi to warn them.
Here's the deadly evidence so that you, too, will understand that the savants have seen all, told all with regard to this threat to the American (liberal/progressive) way of life [emphasis added by the Friends of Humanity]:
This is a call to all Regiment Members,
I am calling on all strong willed individuals to help lead SCCOR into the 2010 election cycle.
We need to identify the enemy and be ready for a long hard fight. We have to compile information of the candidates to get out to the voters.
We also need to get the voter registrations so we can concentrate on battle ground districts.
We need members that would like to set up fund raisers. This is no time to be complacent and wait for someone else to do it.
We are all in this mess together and it’s time to step up ! Words are good but ACTION is what is needed. This may be the last chance we have to save our state and country.
You have an organization now - let’s utilize it. E-mail me on what you are willing to do to help our cause.
Thank-you
Charles Agan
chuck@sccor.org
Chairman SCCOR
There is a term for the intellectual acuity it requires to take this message and turn it--as nemski explicitly does in the comments section--into evidence of violent intent. Have you ever heard someone say, "If he was twice as smart he'd be a moron"? The term for such a person is Less-on.
On a serious note: Anonone will be by soon, to explain to me that this is just jason's opinion, that he has every right to his opinion, and that it is wrong of me to call bullshit on his continuing attempts to pretend that there is a violent group organizing in Sussex County.
After all, if PACs are legal, even people with political views jason doesn't like will have them.
Comments
SCCOR has a PAC as well, btw.
They also think (I use the term very loosely now) that they can characterize me as a Republican because the Libertarian Republican blog asked me for permission to reprint a post.
And, btw, as a good libertarian, if correcting their increasingly shrill, paranoid attacks is driving traffic here, then--strangely--I'm OK with that.
I just got put into a :moderated: status at DL.
All because I refused to be pressured by an anonymous blogger 'Bulo into giving him the NAMES of my sources for information he disagrees with.
Boo Hoo.
Subversives !!!!
I'll be happy to oblige right after you show me where Jason is calling for "restrictive action by the government" in this particular post.
You used far more words in trying to interpret and exaggerate the editorial intent of Jason's post than he did in writing it. I guess you were reading between the lines.
But that's your opinion.
anonone
Nice try: but I didn't say the words you placed in quotes in your comments in this post, did I?
And you're pretending that jason--as I have quoted on many occasions--has NOT called for DHS scrutiny and ATF to seize any firearms owned by this group, aren't you?
That's a cute game: if jason doesn't say it explicitly every time, you get to deny he said it at all.
Free speech is so much fun.
You didn't say those words this time.
No, I am not pretending.
It is cute.
It is fun!
anonone
I have wired in a subroutine ala Kirk.
Besides, the point here is not arguing with them; the point is not allowing them to keep smearing a local group without getting called on it.
Fuck that.
Or, better yet, "The Pariah of the DE Blogosphere."
Steve, you need more information before you defend SCCOR, as I tried to indicate to you on an earlier, related topic here. To give you a taste, I furnished you with the comments of a well known local blogger who has a reputation for being most fair and balanced:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/15924539891790915430
The other point I would make is that I do not believe you have first hand knowledge of the radical element of WGMD listeners who are behind this SCCOR outfit. The hateful, belligerent, and nasty rhetoric that emerges on a daily basis is unreal. The latest example is to accuse Cape Henlopen School Board candidate Meyer Persow of being a pedophile, without evidence. The tirade against Meyer has been outrageous. These are the same people pushing this SCCOR organization.
Certainly they have a right to say or organize in any way they wish. I am just concerned, based on many years of listening to these people, that they have the potential to be dangerous. I will be following their activities, hoping that I am wrong, but very concerned.
I just wish that you could hear their daily rhetoric on WGMD, so you could judge for yourself. Streaming audio, Bill Colley, weekdays 3-7p: http://www.wgmd.com/
Perry Hood
Once again: The First Amendment is NOT applicable in PRIVATE circumstances. If you did not know that, learn it. Quick. Second, how many warnings did I have to give you before I actually followed through w/my threats of banning? YOU had the choice; you CHOSE to ignore my warnings. Third, Tyler Nixon did to A! precisely what I did to you.
Fact. Case closed. Goodbye.
I have listened to WGMD since you asked--not that much because my computer keeps getting glitches when I try to stream it. But I know what Bill Colley is and does, and he certainly doesn't represent my views or anything remotely like them. Nor do the callers, who, by the way, being anonymous it would be difficult to match up to SCCOR but I will even grant you the point that they might be one and the same.
That having been said, what do you propose?
On the one hand you admit they have the right (not privilege, RIGHT) to free speech and free assembly.
On the other hand you think they are potentially dangerous.
So for you to continue in this conversation with any credibility, Perry, it is time to say without equivocation where you stand: Do you believe, as jason (and apparently nemski and cassandra), that the "evidence" you have seen warrants surveillance by the government, and possibly (only jason goes this far) seizure of any weapons they may own?
Pretty simple: answer that question without equivocation and the dialogue continues.
It's really about risk. I think that long-term there is a far greater risk to our society and my children from muzzling the speech of the disaffected and alienated than there is in actually engaging them.
But to do that, you have to get over your fears--or at least learn to function despite them.
Over the course of my lifetime, 99% of the people most worth knowing are people who would definitely be considered part of some fringe or other.
I will not disown them; I will try to live and work with them.
But answer the question, Perry: do you think you have sufficient evidence for government surveillance?
Incidentally, I find it noteworthy that Bill Colley (and Bill Rogers) will not pick up whenever I attempt to call in, whether I use my cell or home phone. My many calls prior to Colley, over the years, have always been picked up.
Perry Hood
Cripes, can you really blame them? If you're even remotely like you are on the blogs, I'd say they're damn wise ...
Hube whines: "Once again: The First Amendment is NOT applicable in PRIVATE circumstances. If you did not know that, learn it. Quick. Second, how many warnings did I have to give you before I actually followed through w/my threats of banning? YOU had the choice; you CHOSE to ignore my warnings. Third, Tyler Nixon did to A! precisely what I did to you."Sorry Hube, but the fact is you are a coward. You give it out, but you cannot take it, that's more obvious than ever. Although I have much more respect for Tyler, I would also fault him for banning A1.
What are you two afraid of?
Your act is motivated by anger, I would guess; if so, then get control of it, for your own good!
Nevertheless, it is the spirit of the First Amendment, of which you both would say you support, I'm sure, that you violate by your banning actions.
In your more mature moments, you should give this issue a little more thought, then maybe you will adopt the Steve Newton model!
Perry Hood
Your self-flattery is hysterical!
By your standard, a man is a coward for calling the police on someone standing on his lawn and uttering lunacies. If it is not, give me your address and I'll come down and stand on your lawn, keep yapping whatever, and refuse to leave at your request. Then, when you take further action, I'll call you a "coward."
This is the precise case with you on the blogs, Perry. It is not cowardice; if it was, I'd have banned you virtually immediately. You believe any blog (and CoR in particular, for some reason), because it enables comments, allows you to say whatever the hell you wish.
Again, how many warnings does it take, Perry?
Your act is motivated by anger, I would guess
Hardly. It was motivated by weariness, if anything.
Nevertheless, it is the spirit of the First Amendment
Again, you don't understand the First Amendment.
In your more mature moments
Thanks, but I'll take advice on "mature" from someone that doesn't act like a hypocritical cretin on blog comments, thank you very much.
Now, haven't we used enough of Steve's bandwidth on your crybaby-ness?
Let the readers and commenters decide - why not try that, Hube?
I stand by my response, and your latest post merely demonstrates it further.
You just can't take it; that is an obvious fact!
Perry Hood
Sure it is. You just don't like it. My blog is my property. I make the rules. Your lawn is your property. You make the rules. If the rules aren't followed and/or requests aren't listened to, there are consequences.
I've seen enough responses across the blogosphere to see that it's already decided. From me, to Steve, to Tyler, to Mike Matthews, to Dave Burris -- all have said what I have about you at one point or another. The difference is that you seem to have given CoR some sort of "special" Perry treatment. Maybe I pissed you off. Whatever. It doesn't change the basic facts I noted above.
If you don't it, then you can always get your own blog. As Steve himself told you (the most recent one to do so): It is quite easy to do. Then you can complain about me (and whoever else) to your heart's content!