Randy Barnett (subbing for Glenn at glennreynolds.com this week) has a post on reasonable gun regulations that’s worth reading, including the question of whether or not the Second Amendment allows personal nukes (read the comments in the post).
“Clinton Haters”
KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.
I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?
Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).
This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.
“Clinton Haters”
KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.
I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?
Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).
This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.
“Clinton Haters”
KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.
I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?
Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).
This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.
Well, I Feel Safer Now
The Secret Service is actually investigating this Michael Ramirez cartoon, as a potential threat to the president.
Only an idiot could possibly interpret that cartoon as a threat to the president. Is the Secret Service run by idiots? Have they nothing better to do?
Don’t answer that question.
Boo Hoo
Golden State Donkey Implosion
They’ve apparently never learned the old adage, when in a hole, quit digging.
Members of the Assembly Democrats’ progressive caucus were heard making candid, if not intemperate, statements such as one by Los Angeles Assemblyman Fabian Nunez that they may want to “precipitate a crisis” over the budget this year. That might persuade voters to lower the two-thirds vote threshold needed to pass a spending plan, he reasoned.
“It seems to me if there’s going to be a crisis, the crisis should be this year,” Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said during the meeting. “What you do is you show people that you can’t get to this without a 55 percent vote.”
The unintentional broadcast was interrupted when someone informed the group that a microphone was on. “Oh s–,” Goldberg said as the sound was cut.
Heh…
The Republicans are going to make golden hay out of this–the Dems just blew a major part of their demogogic message.
Don’t Put Your Faith In The State
Dale Amon put up a post yesterday, the thirty-fourth anniversary of the day we first left the Moon. A little over three years later, we did it for the last time in a long time (over three decades now), but hopefully not forever. Read the comments.
Don’t Put Your Faith In The State
Dale Amon put up a post yesterday, the thirty-fourth anniversary of the day we first left the Moon. A little over three years later, we did it for the last time in a long time (over three decades now), but hopefully not forever. Read the comments.
Don’t Put Your Faith In The State
Dale Amon put up a post yesterday, the thirty-fourth anniversary of the day we first left the Moon. A little over three years later, we did it for the last time in a long time (over three decades now), but hopefully not forever. Read the comments.