ChrisWeigant.com

This Just In... To CNN...

[ Posted Wednesday, April 17th, 2013 – 16:32 PDT ]

I'd like to start off today's article with an excerpt from a New York Times story, to make a point. Here is what ran in the Times, with a few sentences left out.

Speaking of early reports, the cameras had been at the scene for scarcely an hour before former Representative Dave McCurdy was on CBS talking about "very clear evidence" of the involvement of "fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups." ... But then came a CNN scoop of suspects of Middle Eastern appearance being pursued. Then came a CNN denial. But then came a report that two or three such men were being sought. The Treasury and Justice Departments were troubled enough by CNN's apparent choice of speed over checking that they warned Washington reporters against relying on the network for news about suspects or about other explosive devices, another changeable subject.

It sounds maddeningly familiar to stories being covered today, doesn't it? But this article actually ran eighteen years ago, on April 20, 1995. Here is the full excerpt (I retrieved this from a database behind a paywall, sorry for the lack of a link):

It was not until about 2 P.M., Eastern time, that the Mayor of Oklahoma City, Ron Norick, told reporters that the blast had indeed been caused by a car bomb. But the who and why of what Tom Brokaw of NBC News called "this evil act" remained obscure. Peter Jennings of ABC News cautioned more than once that on these occasions early reports tended to be wrong.

Speaking of early reports, the cameras had been at the scene for scarcely an hour before former Representative Dave McCurdy was on CBS talking about "very clear evidence" of the involvement of "fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups." He reminded viewers that not so long ago a PBS documentary, "Jihad in America," showed Islamic militants meeting in Oklahoma City.

Two hours later on CNN, Senator James M. Inhofe, a Republican who noted that he had beaten Mr. McCurdy for the Senate seat last year, called Mr. McCurdy's remarks a disservice. But then came a CNN scoop of suspects of Middle Eastern appearance being pursued. Then came a CNN denial. But then came a report that two or three such men were being sought.

The Treasury and Justice Departments were troubled enough by CNN's apparent choice of speed over checking that they warned Washington reporters against relying on the network for news about suspects or about other explosive devices, another changeable subject.

Drawing parallels with the past is always risky business, especially since we don't yet know who caused the Boston Marathon bombing. It may turn out to be an Islamic terrorist. Then again, it may not. There are other major differences between 1995 and now, as well. Timothy McVeigh was actually captured within two days of the bombing. Although the news cycle was indeed up to 24/7 speed back in 1995 (in case you find this hard to believe, consider the other big story of that year: the O. J. Simpson trial), the business universe of constant and neverending news was smaller back then (newspapers didn't have blogs or websites, so they only had to worry about one deadline a day, for instance).

But even with a slightly-less-frenzied news cycle back then, and even though the entire window for rampant speculation and rumor-mongering was smaller (it's already been two days since the Boston bombing, and nobody's in custody yet), the storylines had still leapt way ahead of the facts, even back in 1995.

"It couldn't be a home-grown group or a lone wolf," the media reasoned, "since it was too sophisticated for that to possibly be true." At the time, it certainly seemed a reasonable assumption. Even the Attorney General, after all, was dropping hints that it might be an act of international terrorism. It was reported that a car chase was happening in Texas with two "Middle Eastern" men in a truck fleeing for the border. This, obviously, was wrong. But it didn't stop CNN from airing their own rumors, in the quest to be the first with the breaking news.

This frenzy of speculation died quickly, after the news (the real news) broke that a very suspicious individual was in custody -- which was quickly followed up with the news that he had recently rented exactly the same kind of truck that was used in the attack.

Now, I know I've been harping on this note all week, but it is not only pointless but can actually be counter-productive to wildly speculate on who is responsible for the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon. Domestic, foreign, religious, secular, or just purely insane; we really have no idea why this attack happened right now. The American news media is not known for its patience, and they have to talk about something -- I do understand that. They hate (just as the rest of us do) simply admitting "we don't know right now."

But that is where we currently are. We all should take a step back and let the professional investigators do their jobs without making their work harder by getting out too far in front of the actual, confirmed facts. Facts confirmed on the air, by official spokespeople. Not what "our anonymous source inside the police told us." We've all been conditioned to expect brilliant lab work and video surveillance miracles from hipper-than-thou agents sitting at a computer screen, trading quips with their colleagues -- and before the hour's up, including commercial breaks. In real life, sometimes, it takes a lot longer than that. Remember, it took seventeen years to find Ted Kaczynski, otherwise known as the Unabomber.

Sure, it's a lot more fun to theorize while we're all waiting for the investigation to proceed. And somebody's going to turn out to be right. One convoluted theory or another will likely allow some lucky prognosticator to claim he "had it right all along" later on. I wish them well on their future book tour, I really do.

But for the one guy who turns out to be right, there's going to be a whole lot of people with egg on their face. And, as we've already seen, this won't include just the folks blithely weaving theories, but it will also (as always) include a lot of professional journalists as well. Just in the past two days, try counting all the things which were breathlessly reported as "the truth" which have turned out to be wrong. The longer the search takes, the longer this list is going to grow. CNN is currently and prominently on top of that list, but they're certainly not alone. Pretty much every news organization ran with the "there are multiple other devices, one of which has been dismantled and will provide important clues to the bomb-maker" story. Which, as Governor Patrick informed us all, was simply not true in the slightest. It bore no relation to the truth whatsoever. And, again, this is but one example out of many.

I leave you with the last sentence of the Times story I excerpted earlier:

CNN, taking advantage of a break in the O. J. Simpson trial, stayed with the story, replaying the early footage, updating the figures on the dead and the injured and bringing in experts and politicians who were not deterred by how little they knew about the explosion.

Some things never change, do they?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

108 Comments on “This Just In... To CNN...”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    But even with a slightly-less-frenzied news cycle back then, and even though the entire window for rampant speculation and rumor-mongering was smaller (it's already been two days since the Boston bombing, and nobody's in custody yet),

    That's not entirely accurate. A Saudi National is under guard while his injuries are being treated. Technically not under arrest, he is still unable to leave and IS being guarded..

    It's been reported that this Saudi has been released and been declared "innocent".. Of course, no corroboration for this rumor has been forthcoming so we can likely dismiss that as nothing but ideological partisanship..

    It's also interesting to note that Obama met with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal at the White House in an unscheduled meeting..

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or someone with over 2 decades of CT experience) to consider the possibility that this unscheduled meeting has something to do with the Patriot Day bombing.. As I said, it's ONLY a possibility, but to blithely dismiss it is to tip one's ideological-bent hand..

    But for the one guy who turns out to be right, there's going to be a whole lot of people with egg on their face.

    {{cough}} Benghazi {{cough}}{{cough}}

    :D

    Some things never change, do they?

    Sadly, no...

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    I also should point out that, based on my experience, when news media reports that an arrest has been made and then it is quickly rescinded, that usually means that an arrest HAS been made but that authorities want to keep it under wraps so as to glean valuable intel from the arrested scumbag in an attempt to be able to apprehend co-conspirators..

    Now, I am not saying for certain that is what happened in this case. But it does follow a pattern I have seen many times before while working the other side of something like this...

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that, soon after CNN released that a suspect had been arrested and was being processed at a Boston court house, a bomb threat was called into that very same court house..

    Now put yourself in the shoes of the lead investigator... Wouldn't that seem to be just a bit too convenient of a coincidence???

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This is why I had to turn off the news, Chris.

    Because it's really not news anymore. It's more like SportsCenter- where they have hours and hours of time to fill and about 1 minute of actual news to fill it with.

    All they're trying to do is keep you coming back for more by tweaking your emotions with sensationalist headlines.

    *unplug*

    -David

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    The other big story today is the Anti-Gun legislation being shot down in a blaze of glory..

    “The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill”
    -President Barack Obama

    Ya gotta admire the chutzpah of a guy who complains about the other side "lying" when practically every word out of his mouth in support of the Anti-Gun legislation was a blatant and provable lie...

    That's right up there with some Left Wing actor/moron saying that, because of the Patriot Day Bombing, the 2nd Amendment has got to go....

    That's what passes for intelligent dialog these days... :^/

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why I had to turn off the news, Chris.

    Yea, that's why I go out of my way NOT to watch any kind of news... Not even web based videos.

    The only kind of news that is worth anything is the printed word..

    That way, you are not influenced by the body language or the emotionalism that invariably colors the visual...

    Give me news you can READ any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    David,

    When it comes to news and comments sections, one must become more discerning in order to filter out and avoid all of the nonsense. Life is too short.

  8. [8] 
    michty6 wrote:

    That's why BBC is always my no.1 news source. They don't do sensationalist crap because they aren't in the Corporate news world. Neither do they have any political agenda and they are not looking to extract every ounce of profit they can (which is why this sensationalist, 'get the scoop' news reporting exists) at the expense of decent journalism.

    Michale,
    I love how your comments in an article about people speculating without fact are all speculations without fact.

    I'll chime in. I believe the pressure cooker was bought in Canada. Also the Candian PM Steven Harper suspiciously phoned Obama the day after the bombs. Based on these facts I believe this was a Canadian attack on the USA.

    Also this means those sending clips of Family Guy around are way off the mark as there is an entire South Park movie outlying this devastating Canadian plot to take over the USA...

  9. [9] 
    michty6 wrote:
  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll chime in. I believe the pressure cooker was bought in Canada. Also the Candian PM Steven Harper suspiciously phoned Obama the day after the bombs. Based on these facts I believe this was a Canadian attack on the USA.

    And therein lies EXACTLY why no one takes you seriously..

    While I comment on documented facts, you simply make shit up and then treat it as gospel..

    I get it.. I understand. You don't want to see the poor Muslims blamed for terrorist acts. You want to see the redneck Right Wing extremist blamed..

    So, here's what you need to do.

    Point to ANY evidence that indicates that the scumbag perp is a redneck Right Wing extremist..

    You CAN'T because no such evidence exists..

    That's why you ignore the existing evidence and simply make shit up. Like the Saudi has been freed and been declared "innocent" when in fact, the Saudi National has been under guard since the attack and, once they are done pumping him for information, he will be deported for National Security reasons..

    In other words, what I comment on are facts..

    What you comment on is simply made up shit that supports your political ideology...

    Michale...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's why BBC is always my no.1 news source. They don't do sensationalist crap

    Really?? :D

    BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax
    http://www.infowars.com/bbc-caught-in-syria-massacre-propaganda-hoax/

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol Michale my logic was the exact same logic you are using to blame this attack on Saudi nationals. You just don't see how ludicrous your logic is (which is what my point demonstrates) because your logic and biases get re-enforced every morning when you read the latest Drudge report news. The facts I presented are just as true as the facts you presented btw.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neither do they have any political agenda

    Again... Really???

    The BBC and an inconvenient truth about climate change
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2071358/BBCs-bias-global-warming-An-inconvenient-truth-climate-change.html

  14. [14] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol seriously you are pointing me to a right wing newspaper article about our independent news station. That's like saying 'look Obama really is the devil, here is a Drudge article which confirms this'.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol Michale my logic was the exact same logic you are using to blame this attack on Saudi nationals.

    True...

    Except that your logic was based on statements and evidence that you pulled out of your arse..

    My logic was based on documented evidence and facts..

    But, other than that, yes. It's "exactly" the same... :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol seriously you are pointing me to a right wing newspaper article about our independent news station. That's like saying 'look Obama really is the devil, here is a Drudge article which confirms this'.

    Are you saying that the BBC didn't use old pictures of dead Iraqi children and tried to pass them off as pictures of dead Syrian children.

    Is THAT your claim??? Yes or no...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Face it, Michty. You are fighting a losing battle..

    As long as you have nothing in the way of actual evidence and actual facts, you will always lose these debates... :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Except that your logic was based on statements and evidence that you pulled out of your arse..

    My logic was based on documented evidence and facts..

    Again I repeat: absolutely nothing in my evidence is untrue. Seriously how do you not understand this simple statement? I'm starting to get bored again repeating the same simple stuff over and over again...

    Also I am not flat out denying that your speculation could be correct (like you are to mine). I am saying that it is merely speculation and just as silly (based on the same logic) as my speculation at this point in time.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again I repeat: absolutely nothing in my evidence is untrue.

    Then you can document it, right??

    By all means.. Be my guest...

    I am saying that it is merely speculation and just as silly (based on the same logic) as my speculation at this point in time.

    Of course, it's speculation.. What else WOULD it be???

    But, in MY case, the speculation is based on documented evidence.

    In YOUR case, the speculation is based on stuff you pull out of your arse, colored by ideology and hysteria...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it this way.

    We had this same discussion during the Benghazi Attack...

    As it turned out, I was dead on ballz accurate and you were as wrong as wrong can be...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    michty6 wrote:

    But, in MY case, the speculation is based on documented evidence.

    In YOUR case, the speculation is based on stuff you pull out of your arse, colored by ideology and hysteria...

    Jesus this is my last post on this because I'm done talking to someone who can't understand a simple point.

    FACT: It has been speculated and reported that the pressure cooker was either made or bought in Canada (Global TV, local reports here, NYTimes)

    FACT: The PM of Canada Steven Harper phoned Obama after the bombings (he said this in a live TV interview with his own mouth, don't know if that meets your standards of 'fact')

    So for the 50 millionth time, my logic is based on the same speculatory news 'fact' that yours is.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    FACT: It has been speculated and reported that the pressure cooker was either made or bought in Canada (Global TV, local reports here, NYTimes)

    FACT: The PM of Canada Steven Harper phoned Obama after the bombings (he said this in a live TV interview with his own mouth, don't know if that meets your standards of 'fact')

    Even if that were true (you still have yet to document it) it doesn't even come close to comparative relevance to the evidence that I have documented..

    First off, Obama initiated the unscheduled meeting with the Saudi Foreign Minister. Second, the connection that the weapon used has to Afghanistan and Pakistan is a LOT more relevant to the investigation than where the lid of the pressure cooker was made... Especially in light of the proximity issue..

    That's EXACTLY your problem. You filter ALL your evidence thru your partisan ideological filter..

    You LOOK for evidence to blame Right Wing extremists and IGNORE evidence that would point at Islamic terrorists as the culprits...

    Your "logic" as you call it is nothing more than wishful thinking...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Nope, all your evidence is absolute speculation like most of the stuff out there. In fact you nailed exactly what the problem is with your 'evidence' spot on in your post:

    That's EXACTLY your problem. You filter ALL your evidence thru your partisan ideological filter..

    This was the entire point of CW's column and what we have been saying all along. The problem is that you think it applies to everyone else but not you lolol.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope, all your evidence is absolute speculation like most of the stuff out there. In fact you nailed exactly what the problem is with your 'evidence' spot on in your post:

    Point to ANY evidence that I have filtered thru ANY partisan ideology..

    You can't because I HAVE no partisan ideology...

    "Any attempt to prove it is futile because it just ain't so.."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Riiiiight you definitely don't have a partisan ideology or any internal biases. The fact that you believe "the majority" of Muslims are terrorists and read the hate-mongering Drudge by the minute has nothing to do with why you jump to the conclusion that it was a Muslim terrorist attack. Riiiiiiiiight.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Riiiiight you definitely don't have a partisan ideology or any internal biases. The fact that you believe "the majority" of Muslims are terrorists and read the hate-mongering Drudge by the minute has nothing to do with why you jump to the conclusion that it was a Muslim terrorist attack. Riiiiiiiiight.

    Once again we see how, when you get spanked, you resort to simply pulling crap out of your arse...

    I never claimed that the majority of Muslims are terrorists..

    I also never jumped to ANY conclusion, let alone the conclusion you are claiming..

    I merely speculated based on the factual evidence..

    And you??

    You speculated on things you pulled out of yer arse... :D

    Wanna talk about how Democrats utterly failed even the most SIMPLE of anti-gun legislation? :D

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100212724/barack-obama-cant-pass-gun-control-despite-90-per-cent-support-truly-he-is-a-lame-duck-president/

    Sometimes it just too damn easy... :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Barack Obama can't pass gun control despite 90 per cent support.

    What this tells me is that our government is not under the control of our people.

    The real tragedy is that a small minority control the government and that our elected representatives really don't care about what people want.

    -David

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barack Obama can't pass gun control despite 90 per cent support.

    What this tells me is that our government is not under the control of our people.

    The real tragedy is that a small minority control the government and that our elected representatives really don't care about what people want.

    David,

    That stat is actually very misleading and doesn't really indicate the true will of the people..

    If you ask people, "Do you want to prevent killers and psychopaths from acquiring guns?" of course you can get 90% of Americans to say YES...

    But, in reality, only 4% of Americans think that Gun Control is an important priority...

    The simple fact is, what Obama and the Democrats put together was absolutely nothing.. All that legislation would have done is increase the already useless background checks to encompass gun shows and internet sales.

    That's it...

    In the idea of actually being effective in preventing a Sandy Hook, it was absolutely and completely useless...

    But, like ObamaCare, Democrats just had to pass something... ANYTHING, regardless of whether it would accomplish anything or not..

    Now, I might be wrong, but I think we are of a mind that such legislation is worse than useless...

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    When it comes to news and comments sections, one must become more discerning in order to filter out and avoid all of the nonsense. Life is too short.

    Absolutely, Liz. I stick to quality sources and work to share them with others.

    -David

  30. [30] 
    akadjian wrote:

    All that legislation would have done is increase the already useless background checks to encompass gun shows and internet sales.

    I think that would be a good thing. Why should gun shows and internet sales be exempt from background checks?

    -David

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think that would be a good thing. Why should gun shows and internet sales be exempt from background checks?

    I think the better question is why not make the background checks better??

    Criminals and psychotics don't submit their purchases for background checks..

    The problem here is that, to make the background checks TRULY effective, they would have to employ a nationwide database of criminal and mental health issues..

    But that is something the Left has fought tooth and nail against...

    "Why should poor Johnny be penalized for the rest of his life because he had a nervous breakdown???" is usually how it goes with the ACLU-oriented Democratic Party...

    You want to increase background checks, then by gods, make them REAL checks.. And make them have some REAL teeth if people fail them...

    But that, again, is against the mantra of the Democratic Party..

    "Spare the jail time and spoil the crook"....

    Put the energy into THAT and then we can talk about expanding THOSE checks...

    Michale...

  32. [32] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I think the better question is why not make the background checks better?

    I think expanding them to gun shows and Internet sales would make them better.

    It's good to know though that you really don't seem opposed to this, just Obama.

    -David

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think expanding them to gun shows and Internet sales would make them better.

    But it's the same checks..

    Put another way.. Let's say you have a flu vaccine that does absolutely NOTHING to ward off the flu...

    Then you are faced with a choice..

    Do you expand the vaccination program so a LOT more people get the useless vaccine??

    Or is the better choice to make the flu vaccine better and THEN work on expanding the program???

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's good to know though that you really don't seem opposed to this, just Obama.

    I AM opposed to useless gestures that serve absolutely NO purpose but to placate the masses and further a useless agenda and actually cause more problems of the type it's supposed to solve..

    I thought I made that clear when it was done the LAST time.. With ObamaCare.... :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's good to know though that you really don't seem opposed to this, just Obama.

    For the record, you know very well that there are quite a few things that Obama has done that I completely agree with and whole-heartedly support..

    :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, you know very well that there are quite a few things that Obama has done that I completely agree with and whole-heartedly support..

    But, having out POTUS throwing a very public and very whiney temper tantrum in the Rose Garden is NOT one of them...

    I mean, seriously, Obama.. Show some frakin' dignity, fer chreest's sake!! And there is ol'e Joe, bawlin' his eyes out in the background..

    Didn't ya'all ridicule Boehner for showing such emotion???

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I never claimed that the majority of Muslims are terrorists..

    Wow. Do you have bi-polar disorder or something? We have discussed this on MANY threads on here.

    Anyway I don't know why the FBI bothered to release photos of their 2 suspects everyone knows it's the Saudi guy. Case was solved a long time a go (in right-wing conspiracy crazy lunatic media world).

  38. [38] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The failure of the gun background check bill is nothing but yet another alarming wake-up call on how much money - in this case NRA money - controls your Government in America.

    When NRA money can overcome the will of 90%+ of the people, can overcome the votes of the majority and can even overcome the votes of 54 Senators representing 76% of the American population then you know your Government is in real trouble.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    The failure of the gun background check bill is nothing but yet another alarming wake-up call on how much money - in this case NRA money - controls your Government in America.

    Of course, THAT'S it..

    It just CAN'T be the fact that it was crappy legislation.. Right??

    When NRA money can overcome the will of 90%+ of the people,

    Only 4% of Americans think that Anti-Gun legislation is important...

    The simple fact is that Obama and the Democrats tried to use a tragedy to force unpopular and unnecessary legislation down the throat of the American people.

    They got slammed down..

    It's really that simple...

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow. Do you have bi-polar disorder or something? We have discussed this on MANY threads on here.

    No.. YOU have discussed that on MANY threads here..

    And you NEVER come up with ANY lick of factual documentation..

    As usual....

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    wow, there's a lot of snark in the room.

    regardless, CW's impeccable sense of history may have happened upon a point he only half-made. culturally speaking, radical islamist types tend to fall all over themselves to take credit for any successful action carried out against the US or Israel. unlike domestic types, those guys welcome retaliation, because it wastes our resources and makes us look bad. therefore, i would conjecture that the more time passes without anyone or any group claiming credit, the less likely it is to be a radical islamist. at the moment, i still give it close to fifty-fifty, but the likelihood is falling.

    ~joshua

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Spot on analysis, Joshua. Very good points..

    And the likely hood is falling even faster, if the pictures being distributed are accurate..

    On the other hand, according to DHSsec Napalitano, those aren't "suspects under the technical term"..

    What the FRAK does that mean!??

    Either they are suspects are they are witnesses...

    I pray for an administration that will just ignore political aspects and call a spade a frakin' spade!

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    FACT: It has been speculated and reported that the pressure cooker was either made or bought in Canada (Global TV, local reports here, NYTimes)

    FBI sources report that the pressure cooker came from Fagor America Inc, which is based in New Jersey..

    Now, (as a one time resident of the Garden State) I know New Jersey has it's problems... But to mistake it for Canada?

    That's just mean.. :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    NRA chief: Obama 'bit off more than he could chew'
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/nra-chief-obama-bit-off-more-than-he-could-chew/article/2527573

    I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in the Oval Office when Obama read that particular story.. :D

    I am betting that every breakable in the Oval Office was in real danger of being thrown violently against the wall.. :D

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    MIT shooting triggers massive police operation in Boston
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/18/mit-shooting-cop-massachusetts/2095733/

    Looks like one of the suspects (I guess they ARE suspects now) is on an express elevator trip down to the hot place...

    Godspeed, asshole...

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    More on the MIT shooting....

    One Boston Marathon bombing suspect dead as other pursued in massive manhunt
    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20130419-breaking-news-police-converge-on-neighborhood-outside-boston-mayhem-reported-in-city-after-mit-shooting.ece

    FBI reports that the terrorist who died was shot and then run over by a car...

    One word comes to mind. GOOD....

    The only thing that would have made it better is if the word "repeatedly" came after the word "car"....

    Michale..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wonder how long it's going to be til the Left starts hysterically calling for a Pressure Cooker ban...

    Or maybe background checks for those who want to purchase a pressure cookers. Of course, the background checks would apply to Home Shows and internet sales...

    AG Holder can set up a sting and have a few dealers do a bunch of straw sales of pressure cookers and tag them to trace them back to the people who would make illegal jams and jellies...

    {/snark}

    :D

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But it's the same checks..

    I think the background checks do work. The obvious way around them is the gun show/Internet loophole.

    If they need to be strengthened, then let's strengthen them. The first way to strengthen them though seems like getting rid of the loophole where people can just bypass them completely.

    I'm sorry, Michale, but I don't see any good reason for keeping the loophole.

    -David

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    LEO sources are reporting that the terrorist suspects have international ties and have been in country for about a year..

    If this pans it, it represents a major setback in the CT field and is a CT official's worst fear...

    Non-Arab terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda...

    Profiling becomes nearly useless...

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I think the background checks do work.

    Cite??

    The obvious way around them is the gun show/Internet loophole.

    Let me put it this way...

    What would be the number 1 reason why a person would want to avoid a background check???

    Because they have a criminal background.. Based on that logical assumption, it's likely that the person wants a gun for a criminal purpose.

    As such, they are unlikely to go thru proper channels to obtain a gun..

    Ergo, the background check is useless for that kind of enforcement.

    Now, let's look at another scenario..

    Some guy gets really pissed off and wants to go kill someone with a gun.. All stats have a "cooling off" or waiting period to purchase a handgun.. Background checks have absolutely nothing to do with that..

    Now, for this guy, the ONLY option is to get a gun fast is to go to a gun show. But, as you may or may not know, gun shows AREN'T that plentiful and are not every weekend.. So, this pissed off guy will have to wait until a gun show comes around to his area.. And there is your "cooling off" period...

    So, no matter what, expanded background checks make absolutely NO difference, other than create a very real possibility of a master national gun-owner database..

    This legislation was worse than useless because it gave a false sense of security..

    Like the flu vaccine example I gave you above..

    What's the more logical next step??

    Expand a useless flu vaccine to cover MORE people??

    Or work on making the vaccine more effective and THEN work towards expanding it??

    Logically, the latter is the best next step..

    This Anti-Gun legislation was simply a way for Democrats to show that they did something, ANYTHING, in response to Sandy Hook..

    The legislation would have not prevented Sandy Hook. That is universally agreed upon..

    NO LAWS IN THE WORLD would have prevented Sandy Hook.. Do you know how I know this? Because Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country..

    And Sandy Hook still happened..

    We don't need more laws. We need better enforcement of the laws on the books..

    It's really THAT simple...

    I'm sorry, Michale, but I don't see any good reason for keeping the loophole.

    You may be right.. But I am not arguing for or against the loophole..

    I am simply saying that FIXING the checks should be the priority..

    THEN we can discuss expanding the checks and plugging loopholes...

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, closing the gun show loophole is not relevant in the background check issue, but rather in the cooling off period issue...

    If a crook goes to a gun show to avoid a background check and you take that option away, he/she will simply resort to other, possibly more violent, options..

    You DO have a logical argument for closing the gun show loophole as it pertains to the cooling off period.

    But, as I point out above, it's likely that if someone is pissed off and wants a gun fast....

    "A waiting period!!??? But I'm angry now!!!"
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

    .... he/she is going to have to wait anyways, for a gun show to roll thru their area...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the Islamic connection is pretty solid.

    The pair of scumbag bombers are from a region of Chechnya that is rife with Islamic insurgency and terrorism...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Cite?

    http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/1/7/2/7/1/gun-violence-down-after-brady-bill-103890016215.jpeg

    If a crook goes to a gun show to avoid a background check and you take that option away, he/she will simply resort to other, possibly more violent, options.

    So you want to make it easier for criminals to get guns because they might ... maybe, possibly hurt us if we don't make it easier for them?

    Wow ... I never thought you'd be one to back down from a criminal threat.

    Seriously, this doesn't make any sense to me.

    Besides, the evidence seems to indicate the exact opposite - making it harder for criminals to get weapons works.

    -David

  54. [54] 
    michty6 wrote:

    And you NEVER come up with ANY lick of factual documentation..

    LOLOLOL I don't have to come up with factual documentation. I am not the one claiming 'the majority' of the 1.6 billion Muslims in this world are terrorists because 0.00001% of people calling themselves 'Muslims' have committed terrorist acts. Since you are the one making this accusation the onus is on you to prove that >800m of Muslims (a majority) are terrorists or admit you are wrong and throwing around wild, inaccurate, over-the-top, bigoted, fear-mongering, racist accusations...

    Also I don't care how many Chechan guys they kill or hunt down, everyone knows that it was the Saudi guy. The 'facts' were clear on this after 12 hours...

  55. [55] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Besides, the evidence seems to indicate the exact opposite - making it harder for criminals to get weapons works

    The evidence is very clear. Making it harder for ANYONE to get a gun reduces gun violence. A ban is the perfect way of achieving this but won't happen anytime soon in the US, so you guys have to look to other measures.

    Unfortunately your Government is controlled by money so the will of 90%+ of the people can be subverted. Also your media is toothless and unable to stand up to the money and lies of the NRA.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
    http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2003_spr/cook.htm

    Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only seven individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected.[19]
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

    So you want to make it easier for criminals to get guns because they might ... maybe, possibly hurt us if we don't make it easier for them?

    Like the Brady Bill, closing the gun show loophole will have no discernible effect on the ability for criminals to acquire firearms.. Closing the loophole WILL increase the likelihood that such alternate means will result in are achieved by violence.

    Besides, the evidence seems to indicate the exact opposite - making it harder for criminals to get weapons works.

    Let me put it this way..

    People have a trick with their alarm clock where they put it across the room so they won't just roll over and hit the OFF. With the trick, they have to get up and walk across the room..

    Closing the loophole is akin to that.

    Yea, it's a little more trouble, but not discernibly so...

    And if you DO close the loophole, these crooks my hurt or kill someone in their way as they walk across the room to turn off the alarm clock...

    I am also constrained to point out that there ARE background checks required at gun shows already...

    So, this is one more reason why the current legislation was absolutely useless. Actually WORSE than useless because it gives a false sense of security..

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    LOLOLOL I don't have to come up with factual documentation. I am not the one claiming 'the majority' of the 1.6 billion Muslims in this world are terrorists because 0.00001% of people calling themselves 'Muslims' have committed terrorist acts.

    No, you are claiming that *I* made the statement.

    So, all you have to do is prove it.. :D

    The evidence is very clear. Making it harder for ANYONE to get a gun reduces gun violence.

    Yea, tell that to the parents of the kids murdered at Sandy Hook..

    Tell that to relatives of all the people murdered in Chicago and DC, that have strict gun laws in place..

    You are completely and factually in error on your claim...

    You spout out useless and out of date stats that have absolutely NOTHING in common with the reality of the here and now..

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
    http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2003_spr/cook.htm

    From your expert ...

    Cook said the real problem is the law's "gaping barn door" for unregulated sales, mainly at gun shows

    -David

  59. [59] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Close the loophole. That is all.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cook said the real problem is the law's "gaping barn door" for unregulated sales, mainly at gun shows

    Apparently, it's not as "gaping" a hole as you would think, considering that the Brady Bill had no impact on gun homicides..

    And, as I stated, background checks are already required at gun shows...

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/apr/16/gun-shows-have-background-checks/

    So, requiring background checks at gun shows is redundant because the vast majority of transactions at gun shows already have background checks..

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Close the loophole. That is all.

    There IS no loophole..

    Less than 20 percent of the sales at gun shows are done without background checks...

    The gunshow loophole is a myth. It's used to take the first steps towards a national gun registration..

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    michty6 wrote:

    No, you are claiming that *I* made the statement.

    So, all you have to do is prove it.. :D

    Like I said I think you have bi-polar or something, you can't even remember your own statements that we discussed in detail on here. A quick 5 min search and here are some direct quotes from you:

    "Organized terrorism by Eastern Muslims simply could NOT exist without the tacit approval of the masses"

    "There is absolutely NO WAY that a Muslim terrorist organization should be allowed to exist, let alone flourish, if the majority of Muslims worldwide opposed them"

    "The only logical conclusion from the data is that the majority of Muslims do not oppose Al Qaeda et al or their tactics"

    "Which is why it is simply not possible for Muslim terrorist groups to exist and be the threat that they are without the tacit approval of the majority of Muslims worldwide"

    "Seriously.. What evidence is there that disputes the conclusion that the majority of Muslims outside of the US support terrorist groups??"

    "You can try to convince me that Muslims all over the world love the USA and hate the terrorists..
    But you will not be successful...
    Because I know better.."

    "How else could a small group of 10k still be a worldwide threat if the majority of 1.8 BILLION are against them??"

    "the moderate peaceful Mid East Muslim is the exception, rather than the rule"

  63. [63] 
    akadjian wrote:

    There IS no loophole..

    Less than 20 percent of the sales at gun shows are done without background checks.

    Yes! Now you're getting it. It's a loophole.

    -David

  64. [64] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's used to take the first steps towards a national gun registration.

    Also, the compromise legislation worked out by the Senate specifically outlawed a national gun registry.

    -David

  65. [65] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The gun registration was part of the complete and utter NRA bullshit that they came out with to raise money to pay off your politicians...

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said I think you have bi-polar or something, you can't even remember your own statements that we discussed in detail on here. A quick 5 min search and here are some direct quotes from you:

    And NONE of those quotes (which I completely stand by, by the bi) state what you said I stated..

    Thank you for your assistance in proving you wrong.. :D

    David,

    Yes! Now you're getting it. It's a loophole.

    "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."
    Lt Commander Spock

    Also, the compromise legislation worked out by the Senate specifically outlawed a national gun registry.

    Count how many "notwithstanding"s there are in the legislation..

    A "notwithstanding" basically nullifies and negates ANY requirement of the legislation. It basically states that, if the AG determines that a Gun Owner List is necessary, he can do it.. It actually CODIFIES the very thing it CLAIMS to prevent..

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    akadjian wrote:

    A "notwithstanding" basically nullifies and negates ANY requirement of the legislation. It basically states that, if the AG determines that a Gun Owner List is necessary, he can do it.. It actually CODIFIES the very thing it CLAIMS to prevent.

    This sounds like a lot of paranoid fear mongering

    -David

  68. [68] 
    michty6 wrote:

    which I completely stand by, by the bi

    Exactly, so you stand by your statements which confirm that you believe the majority of Muslims are terrorists. Dear Lord that was painful.

    Count how many "notwithstanding"s there are in the legislation

    Lol the legislation was written by a Democrat and Republican who have A+ marks from the NRA. But the NRA, like the Republican party, has been taken over by whack-jobs. It also is a well funded whack-job organisation thanks to gun manufacturers.

  69. [69] 
    akadjian wrote:

    @Michty

    When what you sell are guns, the solution to everything looks like more guns.

    *sigh*

    -David

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    This sounds like a lot of paranoid fear mongering

    Are you disputing the meaning??

    Or just pooh-poohing it because don't like it?

    Would you feel the same way if it was Albert Gonzales or Dick Cheney that had the NotWithStanding option??

    Exactly, so you stand by your statements which confirm that you believe the majority of Muslims are terrorists. Dear Lord that was painful.

    That's not what I said.. Can you point to ANY statement where I said that "the majority of Muslims are terrorists"??

    No you cannot. Ergo, you lied. And you got caught lying..

    Lol the legislation was written by a Democrat and Republican who have A+ marks from the NRA.

    I don't give a rat's ass if it was written by the Easter Bunny..

    The simple fact is, it is codefied in the language of the legislation that the AG or the POTUS can create a national gun registry if they deem it necessary..

    These are the facts. Ya know, the things that ya'all CLAIM to be interested in?? But, apparently, you are only interested in facts when they suit your ideological agenda..

    Michale

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    When what you sell are guns, the solution to everything looks like more guns.

    And yet, when you have a problem with a psycho with a gun, what is the VERY first thing you do??

    You call a person with a gun..

    So, apparently, YOU TOO believe that the solution to a gun problem is more guns...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Ok let's kill your stupid semantic games right now. Do you believe - yes or no answer - that the majority of Muslims are terrorists?

  73. [73] 
    michty6 wrote:

    These are the facts. Ya know, the things that ya'all CLAIM to be interested in?? But, apparently, you are only interested in facts when they suit your ideological agenda.

    If you actually believe this there is not really point in arguing further. It's be like arguing with someone who thinks the sentence 'the sky is blue' means that the President has assumed executive power to change the colour of the sky...

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ok let's kill your stupid semantic games right now. Do you believe - yes or no answer - that the majority of Muslims are terrorists?

    No, I do not..

    But the facts do clearly show that the majority of Muslims (sans Western Muslims) condone and/or support terrorist organizations either by commission or omission.. Organizations like Hamas or Al Qaeda etc etc simply could not exist otherwise..

    Our own history paints a perfect example..

    The Democrat-Affiliated Klu Klux Klan terrorist organization was supported by the majority of the American people... Granted, that support came primarily from the Democratic Party, but it is not wild speculation to state that the KKK had the support of the majority of the American people.

    It's only when the American people grew up and grew past such out-moded and archaic ideas that the KKK was decimated and rendered impotent as a terrorist organization..

    In other words, without the support of the American people either by commission or omission, the KKK ceased to exist as a threat..

    So is it today with terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda...

    Once Muslims "grow up" and grow past these religious ideals and ideology, groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda will cease to exist as a threat...

    To sum up, it is obvious that the majority of Eastern Muslims are not terrorists..

    But it is equally obvious that the majority of Eastern Muslims DO support and condone terrorist groups, either by omission or commission..

    It is simply NOT POSSIBLE that these groups could exist otherwise..

    Happy?? :D

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you actually believe this there is not really point in arguing further. It's be like arguing with someone who thinks the sentence 'the sky is blue' means that the President has assumed executive power to change the colour of the sky...

    I agree..

    If you want to equate apples and alligators (or in this case, equate physics and legislation) then there really isn't any point in discussing things further..

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The KKK is actually a good example to show why you are miles off.

    Saying the majority of Muslims support or condone terrorist groups is as stupid as saying the majority of Christians support or condone the KKK.

    Or that the majority of Catholics support or condone paedophilia.

    It's retarded logic.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Saying the majority of Muslims support or condone terrorist groups is as stupid as saying the majority of Christians support or condone the KKK.

    How else do you explain the popularity of the KKK during the early 20th century??

    Nothing else explains it but the support of the majority of the American people..

    Put another way..

    If you have a population of 20 million people and an organization bent on murder, terrorism and destruction exists, consisting of only 10 thousand people, how is it possible that that organization could exist??

    Let's take Germany in the early 30s....

    How could the Nazis rise to power??

    Because they had the support of the majority of Germans..

    It's only when the general population decided that the Nazis were barbaric animals, did that support dry up... And when the support dried up, the Nazis ceased to exist..

    How can Hamas come to power if not by the support of the general population???

    Any other assumption is retarded...

    History is replete with examples of violent organizations that had the support of the general population that ceased to exist when that support dried up...

    Hopefully, eastern Muslims will learn this valuable lesson and quit supporting terrorist organizations...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Nothing else explains it but the support of the majority of the American people

    ....

    How can Hamas come to power if not by the support of the general population???

    Lol amazing logic.

    How is the Catholic church so powerful? Must be because people must obviously support paedophilia.

    History is replete with examples of violent organizations that had the support of the general population that ceased to exist when that support dried up...

    Hopefully, eastern Muslims will learn this valuable lesson and quit supporting terrorist organizations...

    Hopefully Western Catholics will learn this valuable lesson and quit supporting organisations that practice and support paedophilia.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hopefully Western Catholics will learn this valuable lesson and quit supporting organisations that practice and support paedophilia.

    Pedophilia is not part and parcel to the existence of the Catholic Church. It's an unfortunate by product that is not as prevalent in the Catholic Church as murder and terrorism is in terrorist organizations.

    Once again, you are comparing apples and alligators..

    Now that I have answered your question, why not answer mine.

    How can a terrorist organization like Hamas or Hezbollah exist without the support of Muslims in that area??

    You don't have to answer because everyone knows the answer..

    They COULDN'T exist...

    It's really THAT simple..

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Now we're getting somewhere with your logic. You are just about there:

    Pedophilia is not part and parcel to the existence of the Catholic Church. It's an unfortunate by product that is not as prevalent in the Catholic Church as murder and terrorism is in terrorist organizations.

    Exactly. Good logic. Let me put it another way:
    Terrorism is not part and parcel to the existence of the Islamic Church. It's an unfortunate by product that is not as prevalent in the Islamic Church as murder and terrorism is in terrorist organizations.

    How can a terrorist organization like Hamas or Hezbollah exist without the support of Muslims in that area??

    The same way that sick and twisted evil paedophile priests still exist and will continue to exist in the Catholic Church without the support of Catholics in that area. Just because they don't have support from the majority does not mean that they can't exist. If only evil could be wiped from the world that easily! This same logic also applies to the KKK, who still exist today, and Christians as I indicated earlier.

    Paedophiles/terrorists are an evil minority that bring down the name and reputation of their churches. Fortunately most of the members of the Catholic/Islamic Church don't agree with paedophilia/terrorists. Otherwise we'd have almost half the world's population supporting either paedophilia or terrorism.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exactly. Good logic. Let me put it another way:
    Terrorism is not part and parcel to the existence of the Islamic Church.

    You are correct. But we are not talking about the Islamic Church...

    Terrorism IS part and parcel to groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah. THAT is what we are discussing...

    And those groups enjoy the support of the majority of Muslims in the region..

    Ergo, the majority of Muslims in the region support terrorist organizations and, by default, support terrorism..

    Simple logic...

    Now, if you want to argue that terrorism is not part and parcel to Hamas, Hezbollah and/or Al Qaeda by all means.

    Make that argument.. :D

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    michty6 wrote:

    And those groups enjoy the support of the majority of Muslims in the region..

    LOLOLOL very good. Nonsense of the highest level of nonsense.

    This is as stupid a statement as me saying that paedophile priests enjoy the support of the majority of Catholics in their area and then using this as a logical basis for my argument that the majority of Catholics support paedophilia...

    It is completely unfounded, not backed up in any facts and basically nonsense. You were getting close but now you've taken a step back :(

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is completely unfounded, not backed up in any facts and basically nonsense.

    Muslims elected Hamas as their representatives..

    That is about as "supported by the people" as it gets..

    Your problem is, you are trying to compare pedophilia (which is NOT part of the Catholic Churches dogma) to terrorism, which IS part of Hamas', Hezbollah's and Al Qaeda's dogma....

    It's a pretty lame argument.

    If you were trying to make the Catholic Church = Pedophilia argument against anyone but me, I would suspect that the religious people in Weigantia would be greatly offended...

    Catholic Church != Pedophilia

    However, Terrorism DOES = Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda etc etc..

    That is where your argument falls apart...

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    With Boston virtually paralyzed, thousands of officers with rifles and armored vehicles swarmed the streets in and around the city on Friday, hunting for a 19-year-old college student wanted in the Boston Marathon bombing after his older brother and alleged accomplice was killed in a furious getaway attempt overnight.

    During the long night of violence, the brothers killed an MIT police officer, severely wounded another lawman and hurled explosives at police in a car chase and gun battle, authorities said.
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130419/DA5OPNCO2.html

    Wanna lay bets on how long it takes for the movie to come out??

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Now, if you want to argue that terrorism is not part and parcel to Hamas, Hezbollah and/or Al Qaeda by all means.

    Make that argument.. :D

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Now, if you want to argue that terrorism is not part and parcel to Hamas, Hezbollah and/or Al Qaeda by all means.

    I don't need to even make this argument to prove how bad your logic is. By showing you the exact same scenario and logic but applied to a Western religious institution and it's paedophilia problem I have proven how flawed your argument is.

    The idea that the majority of the 1.8b Muslims in the world either voted for or support any of those groups is beyond laughable and downright stupid. It'd be like me saying well a congregation in Italy somewhere voted for a Priest who later turned out to be a paedophile, so a majority of Catholics in the world must have voted for and support paedophilia...

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    The idea that the majority of the 1.8b Muslims in the world either voted for or support any of those groups is beyond laughable and downright stupid.

    Once again, you are changing my argument when you can defend the main point..

    We are talking about the majority of Muslims IN THE RELEVANT region....

    I would even go so far as to say the majority of the Muslims outside the West....

    If you dispute the validity, then please explain how a terrorist organization like Hamas and Hezbollah can be ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE to serve in a political forum..

    You CAN'T explain it because the ONLY possible explanation that makes ANY kind of sense is the one that I have put forth..

    The majority of Muslims in the region support terrorist groups and, by extension, terrorism..

    You want to prove me wrong??

    By all means, try..

    But come with some FACTS and not fanciful, yet totally offensive and erroneous comparisons like Pedophiles and the Catholic Church...

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay.. I am a fair guy...

    Anyone else here want to come to Michty's defense in his claim that there is organized pedophilia groups within the Catholic Church??

    Anyone??? Anyone?? Beuhler????

    Seems like yer on yer own, Michty... :D

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol

    Once again, you are changing my argument when you can defend the main point..

    We are talking about the majority of Muslims IN THE RELEVANT region....

    Lol I love how you changed the argument but claim I am. If we were talking about a specific region how comes this region was not mentioned at the beginning lol. Anyway I would still dispute this.

    I would even go so far as to say the majority of the Muslims outside the West....

    And obviously this one is just ludicrous.

    If you dispute the validity, then please explain how a terrorist organization like Hamas and Hezbollah can be ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE to serve in a political forum..

    Well you're completely changing the discussion now. But if you want we can talk about this another time because you're still wrong.

    But come with some FACTS and not fanciful, yet totally offensive and erroneous comparisons like Pedophiles and the Catholic Church...

    When you present me with flawed logic (and zero facts) I show you how your logic is completely inherently flawed. That's how a discussion works.

    If you want to prove the majority of Muslims in the world support terrorism then I'd LOVE to see your facts. Your target is lets say 800m people (which would just about constitute a majority). GO GO GO! I'd guess if you could get enough evidence that ONE MILLION (i.e. 0.006%) of Muslims support terrorism you'd be doing well...

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sometimes I miss Matt..

    His arguments were as batshit crazy as Michty's but he had a certain passion about them... :D

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you want to prove the majority of Muslims in the world support terrorism then I'd LOVE to see your facts.

    Once again, you change the argument..

    I *NEVER* stated the majority of Muslims worldwide..

    Never.. Not ONCE..

    So, since you can't even get the basic facts right, I will accept your concession of defeat...

    Michale...

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:
  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    We were speaking a few days ago about stats...

    Looks like Obama has prevented terrorist attacks on US proper for.. well, for 5 days now...

    "That's a keeper stat."
    -John Madden, EA SPORTS MADDEN NFL

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Way Way Back here...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/04/16/free-floating-anger/#comment-35309

    .... I stated that the evidence pointed to a Muslim as the culprit in the Patriot Day Bombing...

    And now we know that I was indeed, dead on ballz accurate. Despite howls of protests from the Weigantian peanut gallery and false accusations of bigotry against Muslims...

    I know it might be hard for some of ya'all to believe, but sometimes I *DO* know what I am talking about...

    I'm just sayin'.....

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy crap, CW!

    It's been a while since we broke 100 on the comments..

    FTW!!!! :D

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hey michty-

    If you're still out there, this is brilliant ...

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-18-2013/gun-control-whoop-de-doo

    -David

  97. [97] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I'll watch it this morning, I don't do arguing over the internet on weekends...

    I *NEVER* stated the majority of Muslims worldwide..

    Never.. Not ONCE..

    So, since you can't even get the basic facts right, I will accept your concession of defeat...

    Lol I know when you turn to semantics that you are struggling. How about I make it easy for you. I will make the following statements and you can pick which one you disagree with?

    - The majority of Muslims worldwide do not support Terrorism.

    - The majority of 'Eastern Muslims' do not support Terrorism.

    - Even the majority of Muslims in one of the most volatile areas of Muslim relations in the world - Palestine - do not support Terrorism.

    - Saying a majority of Muslims of any sort in any region support Terrorism is like saying the majority of Catholics support Paedophilia. You are extrapolating the actions of a minority on to the majority group operating under that name.

  98. [98] 
    michty6 wrote:

    .... I stated that the evidence pointed to a Muslim as the culprit in the Patriot Day Bombing...

    Uhhm nice try. You blamed the attacks on a Saudi national who was in hospital because you saw it on complete and utter bullshit right-wing media sources. You even stated that the 'facts' were clear on this etc etc (your usual abuse of 'facts'). The evidence of this is in black and white on this site and don't think for a minute I won't be letting you forget about your false witch hunt ;)

  99. [99] 
    michty6 wrote:
  100. [100] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hahaha speaking of getting it wrong

    Lol. That sounds about like CNN.

    Almost as bad as someone at Fox Ft. Worth either messing w/ the station or extremely screwing up ...

    https://twitter.com/peterogburn/status/325404302711607297/photo/1

    -David

  101. [101] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I watched the Daily Show clip, just amazing. Whoopty Doo!

    Love John Oliver, he has a weekly podcast that he does with this other British guy called 'The Bugle' that's worth a listen - not really US based (only in parts to mock what's going on in America) but just lots of silly banter!

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uhhm nice try. You blamed the attacks on a Saudi national who was in hospital because you saw it on complete and utter bullshit right-wing media sources.

    Ummm Nice Try.. I simply commented on the evidenced and mentioned the Saudi Guy (that is on the terrorist watch list, incidentally...

    I *ALSO* stated that, due to the weapon employed, it's likely that we are looking at a muslim terrorist attack...

    And, since you are hell bent on making this a RIGHT vs LEFT debate, I am ALSO constrained that the most egregious journalistic incompetence came from LEFT WING rags....

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    - Even the majority of Muslims in one of the most volatile areas of Muslim relations in the world - Palestine - do not support Terrorism.

    Then explain Hamas and Hezbollah..

    Those organizations simply could not exist without the support of the people..

    Your political bigotry is replacing your logic..

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    - Saying a majority of Muslims of any sort in any region support Terrorism is like saying the majority of Catholics support Paedophilia. You are extrapolating the actions of a minority on to the majority group operating under that name.

    Comparing terrorism, which is part and parcel and the Raison d'etre of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, to pedophile priests simply shows how completely and utterly ignorant you are of terrorism..

    AND the Catholic Church...

    And if *I* am slamming your ignorance of the Catholic Church (which *I* am completely ignorant of) you *KNOW* you must be batshit CRAZY in what you are saying...

    I honestly and truly can't believe that you are being allowed to get away with such gross ignorance w/o ANYONE here saying a word...

    But I guess silence gives assent... :^/

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your political bigotry is replacing your logic..

    This, of course, assumes you even know what logic is...

    The jury is still out on that one. :D

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    OK so let me see if I can sum this up..

    On the ONE hand, you are claiming that the entire Catholic Church is built on furthering pedophilia and encouraging pedophilia the world over. That the entire reason for the existence of the Catholic Church is to further a pedophilia agenda...

    OR

    You are claiming that organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are all about spreading goodness and light all over the world and that there are only a very very VERY small percentage of those members who are engaged in terrorism..

    Which bonehead, moronic and utterly defying of reality opinions do you want to lay claim to...

    I await with bated breath....

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cat got yer tongue, michty??

    I'll take your silence as your concession...

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Sorry, busy day at work. I might have to concede because your latests posts show you are not getting anywhere close to understanding the basic principles and flaws in your logic I am presenting. I'll give it one more go.

    Then explain Hamas and Hezbollah..

    Sure. Let's take an assumption that vastly supports your argument: everyone who voted for Hamas supports terrorism. Now I don't agree with this but let's start with this kind assumption towards your position.

    Even with this assumption that supports your argument, a MINORITY of Palestinian voters voted for Hamas. But wait. Not everyone votes. So when you look at the Palestinian population, the minority of people who voted for Hamas becomes smaller.

    So even with the best possible assumption for your argument - in one of the most volatile regions in the world for Muslim relations - there isn't evidence of a majority of Muslims supporting terrorism. That's before you consider that this region accounts for like 0.00000001% of Muslims.

    The idea that there are like 800m Muslims out there supporting terrorists is laughable and the only way it is even considered a remote possibility by anyone would be if they (1) didn't understand how big a number 800m was, (2) didn't understand math
    , (3) didn't understand what the meaning of the word 'majority' is or (4) - the most likely - all of (1) to (3) combined.

    Comparing terrorism, which is part and parcel and the Raison d'etre of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, to pedophile priests simply shows how completely and utterly ignorant you are of terrorism..

    AND the Catholic Church...

    Lol again you don't understand simple logic. All this discussion and I don't think you have understood a word of the logical fallacy I am showing you are presenting.

    I am saying that if you are applying the logic of applying the actions of a minority group of a religion on to the majority, then by the same logic a majority of Catholics must support paedophilia.

    This has nothing to do with comparing paedophilia to terrorism. It has to do with your awful logic.

    On the ONE hand, you are claiming that the entire Catholic Church is built on furthering pedophilia and encouraging pedophilia the world over. That the entire reason for the existence of the Catholic Church is to further a pedophilia agenda...

    No, I am saying that your logic regarding terrorists and Muslims is so awful that if you applied it to the Catholic church this would be the logical conclusion from it.

    I don't agree that either a majority of Muslims (anywhere) support terrorism in the same way I don't agree that a majority of Catholics (anywhere) support paedophilia. This is because my logic is consistent. If your logic is consistently applied then you would actually agree with both these statements. My point is you seem to agree with it regarding Muslims but when I show you how this logic is false when applied to Catholics all of a sudden you don't quite agree with it any-more. This is because of your own internal biases against Muslims and towards Catholics (and your inability to be logically consistent).

    You are claiming that organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are all about spreading goodness and light all over the world and that there are only a very very VERY small percentage of those members who are engaged in terrorism..

    Lol what? Again read my above statement. The percentage of terrorists in Hamas/Hezbollah/Al Queda has nothing to do with what we are discussing, you are completely lost.

    Let me repeat: if EVERY SINGLE PERSON who either spoke to, voted for, or heck even passed in a street a member of Hamaz/Hezbolla/Al Queda was deemed to be 'supporting' them this would represent around 0.0001% of Muslims worldwide. The logic that you can apply this to 'a majority of Muslims', 'a majority of Eastern Muslims' or 'whatever Muslims' you want is as stupid as the logic that a majority Catholics must support paedophilia because like 0.001% of Priests have engaged in it.

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]