MY OUTRAGE ABOUT BOSTON

I am outraged that anyone, for any reason, would place bombs near the finish line of The Boston Marathon!

I am outraged that these bombs were planted with the obvious intent to kill and maim human beings, no matter the reason behind it!

I am outraged that it took thousands of law enforcement officers from numerous jurisdictions about twenty-four hours to finally capture the second suspect after he and his brother allegedly added an MIT campus officer to the carnage as the suspects still presented danger to the public!

I am outraged that thousands upon thousands of Massachusetts residents were effectively prevented from working, playing, learning, worshiping, or otherwise going about their daily lives as this drama unfolded before them!

I am outraged at the person or persons who commited this atrocious act whether it was the two brothers named as suspects or different people, or people in addition to the two brothers!

I am now outraged that The Justice Department has questioned or plans to question Dzhokhar Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda Rights!

You, know, the statement presented to criminal suspects informing them that they have a right to be represented by an attorney during questioning because whatever they say may be introduced into evidence against them in court.

The DOJ is invoking the ‘public safety exception” to the Miranda Rule. That is:

The police can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html

So explains Emily Bazelon in her column in Slate.com in which she presents the history of this “public safety exception”. It was established by a Supreme Court ruling in New York v Quarles, (1984) where the interrogation of an arrestee without Miranda Rights was permitted. There the suspect was known to have had a gun but when arrested he had an empty holster, so the possibility existed that harm could come from the gun unless information was obtained immediately.

Then some cases involving alleged terrorists came to light where this public safety exception was invoked. The interrogation of Zacarias Moussaoui was bungled, he being the possible 20th 9/11 killer. He was arrested before 9/11.  FBI agent Coleen Rowley requested guidance as to when the exception applied.

Then Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas day bomber, and Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, (neither of whom was successful of course) who were first questioned under the exception and then Mirandized. The former quit talking but the latter continued.

After these incidents  Attorney General Eric Holder suggested a law defining the exception be passed but this went nowhere. The DOJ subsequently produced a memo to the FBI (Note to self…when DOJ writes a memo concerning our rights, run for the fucking exits!) that stated:

Agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents,

and then expanded upon that:

…there may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.

The old adage “the exception proves the rule” is both correct and adequate to confirm that the aberrant behavior itself demonstrates that there is a rule to which an exception is being made.

I fear that is one of the instances in which it appears the “exception BECOMES the rule”. Thus it is no longer an exception.

After all, there is no clear standard to determine when the government’s interest outweighs other considerations. Under the memo the DOJ and FBI, no one else, gets to decide.

Bazelon concludes her piece with this.

Whatever the FBI learns will be secret: We won’t know how far the interrogation went. And besides, no one is crying over the rights of the young man who is accused of killing innocent people, helping his brother set off bombs that were loaded to maim, and terrorizing Boston Thursday night and Friday. But the next time you read about an abusive interrogation, or a wrongful conviction that resulted from a false confession, think about why we have Miranda in the first place. It’s to stop law enforcement authorities from committing abuses. Because when they can make their own rules, sometime, somewhere, they inevitably will.

Ironically this all occurs against the backdrop of the failure of the Senate to pass a bill requiring background checks for gun purchases. Many Senators made their case for rejection claiming the law would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Senator Lindsey Graham said, “I’ve always been confident if the Senate debated the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment would win.”

But this is what he said about Boston, “The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to ‘remain silent” Of course Miranda Rights stem from the 5th Amendment.

Two facts stand out about Graham’s equivocation on Constitutional rights. He gets money from gun lobbyists but there are no equivalent 5th Amednments rights groups handing out cash. The Senate vote took place Wednesday. Tuesday night Graham was named Legislator of the Year by a gun rights group.

Why am I…and why should you be…outraged about this?

Because, when the law gets bent out of shape for one person, it’s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Devildog  On April 20, 2013 at 5:06 PM

    I’m outraged that you’re outraged. Same, same bull shit-but glad you got around to answering my question (if not answering me).

  • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 5:09 PM

    Once you commit an act of war against the US, you are not a citizen of this country. The Constitution does not apply.

    • Tourist  On April 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM

      Treat as credible at your own risk anything said on any subject by a person who could say this.

    • umoc193  On April 20, 2013 at 6:33 PM

      “Once you commit an act of war against the US, you are not a citizen of this country. The Constitution does not apply.”

      Oh what fucking bullshit. The guys, if indeed they are the guilty ones, set off a couple bombs to kill and injure a bunch of civilians. No fucking act of fucking war you fucking fuckhead.

      • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 6:37 PM

        All part of radical Islam’s war against western civilization

      • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 6:48 PM

        What if it was one of your children that was killed.

        All he did was kill a couple of people. This is the same BS we hear about Ayres and his group that O is a desciple of.\

        You guys are in a dream world if you think this is even like committing pre-meditated murder.

  • Devildog  On April 20, 2013 at 5:32 PM

    I believe UMOC has misled readers about Miranda. There is not a requirement under any circumstances to give a Miranda warning. In the run of the mill criminal case, absent a Miranda warning, the government may be restricted from introducing at trial a statement made by the defendant and the fruits of that statement. In this case, the government might believe it has enough evidence to convict without that statement.

    So, UMOC, why the outrage that there was no Miranda warning?

    • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM

      Easy Devildog – UMOC still believes that when we encountered bin Laden in that safehouse, we should have read him his rights based on the chance he might have said something that may have been self-incriminating.

    • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 5:51 PM

      Devildog, this is an excellent point re non-Miranda evidence being inadmissible in court.

      • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 5:59 PM

        Here’s a hypothetical in the instant case: Let’s say that in response to un-Mirandized questioning, Tsarnaev reveals the location of additional bombs and other weapons that then authorities go collect. This couldn’t be used against him at trial, but:
        a) It can be argued that it’s in the interests of public safety to locate and neutralize those weapons ASAP; and,
        b) Tsarnaev ‘s guilt/innocence at trial — and his sentence, if convicted — seems unlikely to hinge on the admission (or not) of those items into evidence.

        • umoc193  On April 20, 2013 at 6:52 PM

          Minx

          I believe yours of 5:50 correctly characterizes how the “public safety exception” is intended to be utilized………to protect the public if those items, particularly the bombs, could harm the public. But it is clear from the DOJ memo that it is being asserted that the FBI can go beyond that.

          The news reports I saw last night seemed to indicate that there was no reason to suspect that there were potentially undiscovered bombs. If there was such a report I was not aware.

          The problem is that SCOTUS carved out a narrow exception…which is the law no matter how I or anyone else feels about it…but that DOJ believes they can go far beyond that narrow scope.

          Frankly, considering this court, DOJ might be guessing right if the matter comes before SCOTUS.

    • umoc193  On April 20, 2013 at 6:39 PM

      “So, UMOC, why the outrage that there was no Miranda warning?”

      Can’t you read? I explained why. In any case, run of the mill or not, if the police question a suspect in custody without giving him the warning, the information gleaned cannot be used against him.

      Why is it that people who are so quick to condemn people for exercising their rights granted to provide certain benefits, are also so quick to advocate withholding rights to people who they deem are unworthy? Wait a minute! It’s the same damned unthinking illogic irrational narrow-minded stupid fucking logic.

      • Devildog  On April 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM

        Ah, the slippery slope argument-what difference does it make what DOJ says or does when it all goes up to SCOTUS and the only court case you mentioned was a 1983 SCOTUS case. Take it, you or yours, to court if you don’t like what’s going on instead of bitching all the time about illegal or unconstitutional.

        Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck,-have I outdone you yet?

  • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 5:44 PM

    See also the following commentary, which cites Bazelon — “What rights should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get and why does it matter?”:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights

    • Devildog  On April 20, 2013 at 7:17 PM

      There is never a requirement to Mirandize anyone under any circumstances and neither DoJ or any other agency can establish Constitutional precedence-only the Judicial branch can do that.

  • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 5:48 PM

    What if Tsarnaev invokes his Miranda rights first? Under the “public safety exception” to the Miranda Rule, could he be denied?

    • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 5:52 PM

      HE IS NO LONGER A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY. HE DOESN’T HAVE MIRANDA RIGHTS. If he plays ball with the Feds, he may get to live. But at this point, mirandizing him is not in his immediate future.

      • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 6:00 PM

        Source for his US citizenship having already been stripped? My understanding was that due process was required for such a procedure.

        • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 6:01 PM

          To quote Tourist re anonymous on April 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM:

          “Treat as credible at your own risk anything said on any subject by a person who could say this.”

        • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 6:12 PM

          He has not yet been stripped of citizenship yet but he will not be treated like an everyday criminal that would be given his miranda rights. Focusing on his rights is ridiculous. He will not be mirandized any time soon.

      • umoc193  On April 20, 2013 at 6:44 PM

        “HE IS NO LONGER A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY. HE DOESN’T HAVE MIRANDA RIGHTS. If he plays ball with the Feds, he may get to live. But at this point, mirandizing him is not in his immediate future.”

        God this is even worse than most of your bullshit and that is fucking saying something. How the fuck does he lose his citizenship? The answer is…HE DOES NOT.

        One more so fucking thoroughly stupid remark like that and I will seriously consider cutting your fucking ass off.

        • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 6:59 PM

          I am pissed at your view of what should be done in this situation. Read all of my comments below about what Lincoln did during the Civil War and what FDR did during WWII

          This guy should not be read his miranda rights until we are relatively certain that he has no info. that can help against radical Islam’s war on the US

          There will soon be a law that grants the Feds a right to question someone like this as long as they need. It was proposed a couple of years ago. It will be revisited and likely NOW will be passed.

        • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 7:03 PM

          You will cut me off? How would I go on? My life will be so empty if I am not able to demonstrate to you how ridiculous your view of the world is.

          • Devildog  On April 20, 2013 at 7:25 PM

            UMOC, if you cut A off, I hope you will be man enough to post that. A, if you decide not to post for a while, will you post something to that effect so it can be known whether you have been offed or have decided to take a rest.

            • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 8:01 PM

              The one good thing about letting A bloviate on re his views is that he discredits his own arguments so effectively 🙂

    • Devildog  On April 20, 2013 at 7:04 PM

      Minx, I assume you are referring to right to counsel because all he would have to do under Miranda is shut up. Right to counsel has nothing to do with Miranda (5th Amendment). It’s a 6th/14th Amendment right.

      • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 8:03 PM

        Let’s see if WordPress will allow me to post this where it belongs 😉

        “Right to counsel is part of the Miranda warning that’s read to arrestees.”

  • Charles Marshall  On April 20, 2013 at 5:56 PM

    Dave,   Great blog post. They can’t have their cake and eat it too. But they waqnt to.   cjm

    • Devildog  On April 20, 2013 at 5:59 PM

      Huh? Dave, not so great a post.

    • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 6:05 PM

      It’s easy to favor rights for people of whose views/actions we approve. The true test of the US Constitution comes to protecting those rights for people accused of views/actions we deplore.

  • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 6:22 PM

    People like UMOC piss me off because he seems to be so worried about this piece of shit’s life. This guy should be set on fire in Boston’s Town Square. He hasn’t been read his Miranda Rights crap. Boo-hoo. Cry me a river.

    I am sick of this – you guys want to read him his miranda rights. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeus corpis during the Civil War. Nobody seems to have an issue with that. But this guy should be read his rights?

    Unreal!!!

  • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 6:36 PM

    Tourist – I assume if FDR were alive today, you would want to put him on trial for this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius

  • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 6:39 PM

    How about FDR putting Japanese-Americans (US citizens) in detention camps during WWII. What crime did these people commit?

  • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 6:45 PM

    If you guys think he will be read his rights any time soon, you are more deluded than I would have ever thought possible.

    This guy committed an act of war. Killed innocent people. Is likely part of a network of people that helped them do this.

    Let’s read this guy his rights like he just hot-wired a car. Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!

  • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 6:50 PM

    This guy was granted citizenship on 9/11. Unreal.

  • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 7:45 PM

    Re Involuntarily Losing Your US Citizenship (Denaturalization), here’s some light (as opposed to merely heat) on the subject:
    http://www.newcitizen.us/losing.html

    Grounds are:
    1. CONVICTED [my emphasis] For An Act Of Treason Against The United States
    2. Holding A Policy Level Position In A Foreign Country
    3. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces If That Country Is Engaged In Hostilities Or At War With The United States
    4. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces As An Officer Or A Non-Commissioned Officer
    5. Lying To The USCIS During The Naturalization Process
    6. Refusal To Testify Before Congress About Your Subversive Activities

    **********

    Re the citizenship revocation process per se:

    “Fortunately, it’s not as easy to take away your citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization as the law reads. Even if you were not entirely truthful or forthcoming during the naturalization process, the USCIS just can’t arbitrarily revoke your citizenship. Citizenship is one of those fundamental rights that our third branch of government (the judicial branch) takes very seriously. It appears the USCIS runs into difficulty with the federal courts when the USCIS revokes someone’s citizenship without giving the accused his or her day in court (no matter how blatant the violation of the law, see – INJUNCTION OF INS ADMINISTRATIVE DENATURALIZATION PROCEDURE ).

    In other words, the only way you are going to lose your US citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization is in a federal court and by a federal judge, who is appointed for life, makes good money, and is answerable to no politician or government bureaucrat no matter how on popular the judge’s decision turns out to be.

    “If any of these situations listed apply to you now or could in the future, we strongly suggest you seek the legal advice of an immigration attorney experienced in US citizenship law. Your US citizenship is too valuable to risk losing because you don’t fully understand the law and the possible consequences of your actions.”

    • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 7:55 PM

      I get it Minx, he is a citizen RIGHT NOW. Has O used drones to kill American citizens without due process?

      FDR tried US citizens in a military during WWII.

      We have to show we are serious about defending our country against these attacks. Reading this guy his rights shouldn’t be high on anybody’s list of concerns.

      • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 8:15 PM

        Your questions are irrelevant to the instant case and your erroneous assertion (to which I was replying) that he’s “no longer a citizen of the US.”

        Tsarnaev still IS indeed a US citizen. Do you deny that fact?

        • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 8:22 PM

          I will concede that and nothing else.

        • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 8:45 PM

          FDR tried US citizens that committed an act of war in a military court during WWII.

          Is this an act of war? I think Tourist, Minx and definitely UMOC would say no.

          History will show otherwise.

    • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 7:57 PM

      *military court

  • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 7:46 PM

    They didn’t just want to kill people. They planted the bombs below the curb so it would cripple people – blow their legs off.

    You guys claim you care about children with those idiotic gun laws. This guy blows away an 8 year old and you’re worried about his miranda rights.

    I feel sorry for you guys. Forever on the wrong side of history.

  • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 7:51 PM

    “..the only way [a naturalized citizen is] going to lose […] US citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization is in a federal court and by a federal judge.”

  • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 7:56 PM

    Right to counsel is part of the Miranda warning that’s read to arrestees.

    • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 7:58 PM

      Sigh, that was supposed to be in reply to Devildog on April 20, 2013 at 7:04 PM. [Bleeping] WordPress!

  • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 8:09 PM

    Poor ol’ NRA, their Boston wet-dream didn’t come true. Just think how much political hay they’d have tried to reap by hailing the Watertown boat-owner as a hero if — instead of phoning the authorities — he’d gone outside with an assault weapon and turned the boat trespasser into human Swiss cheese!

    Adding insult to the NRA’s injury, now Mr. Boat-Owner’s being treated like a hero — and there’s even an online effort to raise enough money to buy him a new boat. Maybe the NRA will counter with raising enough money to buy him a home arsenal as well 😉

  • Tourist  On April 20, 2013 at 8:09 PM

    I have nothing to contribute on this. (Anonymous, that’s a freebie. Go for it.)

    UMOC says (from the Bazelon article) that Coleen Rowley (FBI) asked for guildance on when the public-safety exception applies. According to Bazelon, Rowley said, “If prevention rather than prosecution is to be our new main goal, . . . we need more guidance.”

    This is where it seems Devildog has a key point – that Miranda is about use in court. Miranda itself is not a right. If it’s information they are after, rather than admissible evidence, failing to Mirandize may not warrant that much “outrage” – what degree of outrage are we talking about, anyway? – whether public safety is an immediate issue or not.

    Personally, I have the feeling they – officials, politicians, media – are mucking it up. The suspect is in custody. We have every opportunity to demonstrate the American Way to the world – our commitment to our own proclaimed values – and no reason not to. Instead, this.

    Exceptional, or exceptional?

    • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 8:20 PM

      Worrying about the rest of the world is why this is happening. Maybe O can go on another apology tour. It worked so well the first time.

      Fuck the rest of the world. We have been doing things pretty well for about 240 years. The rest of the world answers to us. Not the other way around.

      • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 10:33 PM

        I thought the US’s mission was nation-building, where we export our Constitutional precepts to other countries, rather than adopting their lesser practices.

        • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 1:28 AM

          This is the second post by Minx that she somehow thinks is insightful but has nothing to do with the dialogue of this thread. Thanks again for the insight, again no matter how poor it may be.

        • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 1:57 AM

          I am not saying violate the Constitution, I am saying the Constitution doesn’t apply to enemy combatants.

          After all, this is why O still uses rendition instead of bringing the captured terrorists to the US, right? He knows the CIA wouldn’t be allowed to torture them if they were brought here.

    • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 8:20 PM

      Second Tourist re Devildog’s key point, and suspect that even without additional info gleaned from Tsarnaev sans Miranda, a conviction of him ought to be pretty easy to obtain based on forensic evidence. (Yes, yes, I realize there are already conspiracy theorists in the Internet ether claiming that the photos were doctored for the purpose of framing the Tsarnaev brothers — Minx rolls eyes).

  • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 8:26 PM

    You guys will love this one. If anything, this act of terrorism will decrease people’s desire to restrict gun rights.

    How scared do you think every citizen of Watertown was when the para-military officers were going door to door? Esp. those people that didn’t have anything to protect themselves with?

    • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 8:48 PM

      Alternatively, the Boston events may prompt people’s desire to have professional police handle such matters, instead of taking them into their own hands. If Mr. Watertown Boat-Owner had attempted to engage Tsarnaev, Tsarnaev might have maimed or killed him instead.

      • Devildog  On April 20, 2013 at 8:53 PM

        And if an armed Mr. Boat owner lifted up the tarp and they came eyeball to eye ball, it might have been who fired first. And if he was unarmed, he probably would be Former Mr. boat owner.

        • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 8:58 PM

          Apparently the unarmed Mr. Boat-Owner did come face-to-face with Tsarnaev, and lived to tell about it.

          • Devildog  On April 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM

            I said eyeball to eyeball not face to face. If you don’t know the difference, ask me.

        • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 9:02 PM

          I wonder why they let the guy they carjacked go?

          Still, I would rather have a gun than not have one if I lived in Watertown the other day.

  • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 8:26 PM

    Has anyone yet addressed the question of whether, if Tsarnaev initiates the Miranda right to remain silent and requests an attorney, he can be denied these on the “public safety exception”? Or, once he calls for them, is that an absolute right in the eyes of US law?

    • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM

      While he is on the ‘public safety exception’, the DOJ doesn’t have to mirandize him even if he invokes it. The question is how long the exception can last? The generally accepted timeframe is 48 hours.

      I have a pretty good feeling the DOJ, with O’s blessing, will extend the exception for one to two weeks depending on whether he is talking.

      • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 8:44 PM

        Tsarnaev may be literally unable to talk. I heard speculation on the network news tonight that his second gunshot wound may have been the one to his neck, and that it may have been a failed suicide attempt (gun in mouth) in the boat in the face of the authorities about to capture him.

        • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 8:48 PM

          Can he use hand signals or like Rain Man, nod once for yes or twice for no?

          • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM

            Depending on the severity of his wounds, and the nature of the medical treatment he’s undergone (e.g., possibly major surgery), he may be unconscious due to heavy sedation, or in a coma, or otherwise unable to communicate.

            • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 11:45 PM

              http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-attack/?sr=google_news&google_editors_picks=true

              “…The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings suffered an injury to his throat and may not be able to talk, a federal official told CNN on Saturday, possibly hindering attempts by authorities to question him about a motive in the attack… Authorities have not publicly detailed the injuries sustained by the teen, but an official who has been briefed said Tsarnaev has been ‘intubated and sedated'”…

  • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 8:54 PM

    Get off this miranda BS. He should be sent to Gitmo and tried in a military court.

    • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 9:00 PM

      Darn pesky Constitution, and all those laws deriving from it!

      • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 9:13 PM

        How about that 8 year old’s Constitutional right to, you know, live. Do you have any problem with his rights being violated?

        You guys cry about the 2nd Amendment and how we just to have more gun control to protect those cherished kiddies and then turn right around and signal to radical Islamists around the world that the worst you’ll get if you blow up American citizens in America is 3 squares a day for the rest of your life. And then they get 72 virgins in heaven. Doesn’t sound like a bad deal to me.

        • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 9:54 PM

          It’s a rotten deal for the 72 virgins.

        • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 10:06 PM

          By anonymous’ logic, anyone accused of any form of homicide has no rights. Never mind that pesky ol’ Constitution, and all the laws flowing from it…

          • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 11:03 PM

            Simply not true but thx for your insight, no matter how poor it may be.

            • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 11:12 PM

              Why do you think it’s not true?

              • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 1:24 AM

                The question doesn’t make sense. I am not surprised that you would ask a question that doesn’t make sense, just pointing out a fact.

    • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM

      When a conservative says that about anything O wants, you have a conniption fit.

      And if he is deemed an enemy combatant which he should be, he can be and should be sent to Gitmo

      • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 10:22 PM

        What’s the legal definition of an “enemy combatant”?

        • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM

          P.S. That’s a trick question.

          • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 1:33 AM

            Thx, but tricks are for kids

  • Devildog  On April 20, 2013 at 9:31 PM

    Waiting to hear from you Krugmanites out there on today’s column in the PG so I can point out this statement he made, ” Policy makers abandoned the unemployed …”. Really? I didn’t know that they did. And he’s supposed to be credible.

  • toadsly  On April 20, 2013 at 9:51 PM

    A sidebar: Too bad the Boston blasting bros didn’t have enough guts to be suicide bombers. If they had, there’s a good chance their heads would have been blown off their torsos and recovered in identifiable condition. Then the feds could FedEx them (the heads) to their dad in Makhachkala, who is currently claiming his “angels” are “scapegoats.” A nice touch would be tattooing their Miranda Rights on their foreheads!

    • anonymous  On April 20, 2013 at 9:55 PM

      toadsly – I am not sure you’re being serious. If you are, I salute you. If you’re not, I wish you were.

      I know it is exactly what I am thinking.

      • toadsly  On April 20, 2013 at 10:00 PM

        I’ve never been more serious!

      • Devildog  On April 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM

        Me thinks Toadsly got the response he wanted.

        • toadsly  On April 20, 2013 at 10:06 PM

          As far as I’m concerned, terrorists are subhuman, and should be treated accordingly.

          • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 10:18 PM

            So are toads (although we’re always humane toward the ones we find in our garden, since they help control insects).

          • Devildog  On April 20, 2013 at 10:21 PM

            Still not convinced!

    • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 10:12 PM

      Toadsly! There’s some speculation that, since the Tsarnaev brothers reportedly had with another pressure-cooker bomb (as well as other explosives and firearms) with them on Thursday night, they may have been planning another attack — except this time with no expectation of surviving, since they’d likely have known that their photos were all over the media. The tantalizing question is where they were thinking of using these devices (another public gathering?).

      • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 10:16 PM

        Another tantalizing detail is that they not only permitted their hijacking victim to survive, but dumped him off. Has anyone read or heard any reasoning to explain this (especially since they had no compunctions re executing that MIT police officer)?

  • toadsly  On April 20, 2013 at 10:23 PM

    Hi, Little_Minx, hope you and yours are fine. I hope Mr. Dzhokar lives just long enough for that information to be tortured out of him. I’m sorry, but people who kill and maim innocent civilians don’t deserve any better.

  • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 10:30 PM

    Toadsly! Have you been watching the second season of “Call The Midwife”? It strikes me as a series you’d enjoy. Am not so enamored of the series re Selfridge’s, not least because Piven can’t act his way out of a paper bag (I pity the rest of the cast for being saddled with him).

  • toadsly  On April 20, 2013 at 10:40 PM

    I’ve seen “Call The Midwife” and enjoy it. No surprise, since my wife is a nurse. What’s surprising is how entertaining CBS’s “Elementary” is. Thought it would be a “stinkeroo.”

    • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM

      I agree that “Elementary” has been a pleasant surprise. The prospect of making Watson female, as well as now out of the medical profession, was a huge risk, but it seems to have paid off, presumably due in part to Lucy Liu’s nuanced portrayal.

    • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 10:49 PM

      I’m sad that this upcoming series of “Inspector Lewis” will be his last. Robbie is my favorite male character on TV.

      • toadsly  On April 20, 2013 at 10:54 PM

        I didn’t know “Inspector Lewis” was coming to an end. I’ll miss it.

  • toadsly  On April 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM

    Exactly! Well, I’m headed for Sleepy Town. Nice chatting. with you.

    • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 10:58 PM

      Perhaps tomorrow you can check out this website:
      http://armchairanglophile.wordpress.com/series/call-the-midwife

      It’s a thorough summary of each episode of “Call The Midwife,” including the few minutes that get snipped out of the PBS airings in order to make time for underwriting messages and Laura Linney’s needless intros (and I say this as someone who’s otherwise a fan of Linney’s).

  • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 11:07 PM

    Re the Miranda exception, even if everything that authorities get Tsarnaev to tell them is unacceptable as evidence at trial, the government may have more than enough evidence to convict based on the following:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/authorities-seek-answers-in-boston-marathon-bombing/2013/04/20/d59e5682-a9cf-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html

    “The suspects allegedly carjacked a Mercedes-Benz sport-utility vehicle, and the driver escaped at a gas station, leaving behind his cellphone. Police were able to track the Mercedes to Watertown through the abandoned cellphone… When a lone police officer confronted the Mercedes, the suspects began firing with multiple guns and threw explosives. More police arrived, and over the course of five to 10 minutes, Deveau said, about 200 rounds were exchanged. At one point, a suspect threw a pressure cooker bomb, like the ones used at the marathon, and it exploded, the police chief said. ‘We find the pressure cooker embedded in the car down the street, so there’s a major explosion during this gunfight,’ he said…”

    • Little_Minx  On April 20, 2013 at 11:54 PM

      “…even if everything that authorities get Tsarnaev to tell them is inadmissible…”

  • Tourist  On April 21, 2013 at 1:36 AM

    Shortly after 9/11, when it came out that those responsible were in Afghanistan, someone in my household could be heard muttering: “Small nukes.” I know what I meant and I excuse myself. I understand, too, that “terrorists are subhuman, and should be treated accordingly,” although that’s a difficult basis for running a railroad. I consider the source.

    Anonymous, above: “All part of radical Islam’s war against western civilization”

    Anonymous, above: “radical Islam’s war on the US”

    Anonymous, above: “signal to radical Islamists around the world”

    Anonymous, above: “What if it was one of your children that was killed. All he did was kill a couple of people. This is the same BS we hear about Ayres and his group that O is a desciple of.”

    Let’s stop for a second. That one was a beauty. “All he did was kill” was not Anonymous speaking; he was purporting to paraphrase others. What Anonymous did, the seed *he* manage to plant, is this: The president . . . is a disciple . . . of someone . . . about whom . . . the same can be said as can be said of the Boston bombers.

    Can we all spell innuendo? Anonymous is obviously a disciple of Pamela Geller.

    Resuming: Anonymous on the Rogers blog: “Radical Islam is the biggest threat to world peace. I can’t see how anyone can disagree with this.”

    Me there: “I can’t see how anyone can declare an opinion in the superlative and think no one could disagree, especially when the subject is undefined.”

    Anonymous, above: “And if he is deemed an enemy combatant which he should be, he can be and should be sent to Gitmo”

    Anonymous, above: “People like UMOC piss me off”

    I’m not sure the Obama administration uses the term “enemy combatant” anymore, but, yes, more or less, the president has the power to designate and send someone to Guantanamo. Some may recall that I made the “treason” case against Anonymous – cheerleading for a worsening economy, cheerleading for higher unemployment – not technically, I acknowledged, but analogously, and to my satisfaction. I’ve also said that I try to know what I would do in a situation before I jump in criticizing the decision-makers.

    If I were president, which of Anonymous’s rights would he most hope I’d care about? By what principles would he hope to be judged? Would he appreciate the efficacy of my system? Treason pisses me off.

    ===

    Why do I think the response is going to be about the disaster that would be my presidency, rather than about the serious point I’m pretty sure is in there?

    • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 3:15 AM

      I am not sure if you really mean to say that I am committing treason by hoping the economy doesn’t do well, but it appears that you are. No response is necessary.

      I think you should have went with your first instinct.

  • Tourist  On April 21, 2013 at 3:53 AM

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaevs_got_the_attention_they_wanted/

    My first instinct was to pull some pithy quotes from that, but decided instead to go with just the first paragraph and invite people to read the rest. It’s not long.

    “A major American city was largely shut down for an entire day because of the hunt for someone who, based on initial reports, was quite possibly a confused, apolitical teenager, who may have been cajoled into taking part in what was essentially a bloody publicity stunt by his now-dead older brother.”

    I certainly do not know if that is an appropriate, fair or accurate description, and I do not minimize, nor does the article, the atrocity, but how, similarly, is the mob of United States senators and blog lunatics with pitchforks and torches so certain Tsarnaev deserves the extraordinary designation “enemy combatant”?

    In the wake of the March 11, 2011, earthquake, U.S. media were declaring in headlines: “Tokyo In Panic.” It was projection. It was outrageous. It pissed people off. There was no panic. Nada. None. Zero. Zilch. There was a situation. People responded. Authorities responded. Everyone coped.

    Americans live in a bubble. Americans overreact. Americans panic.

    Just keep me saaaaaaafe!

    From them.

    • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 4:07 AM

      I will assume Tourist, and please correct me if I am wrong, that you are referring to me when you say ‘blog lunatic’. If so, I would resent that if I valued your opinion of me whatsoever.

      • Tourist  On April 21, 2013 at 4:10 AM

        Casablanca?

    • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 4:11 AM

      How did we respond after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? We didn’t do anything extreme like put American citizens of Japanese descent that committed no crime in detention camps or anything. Oh no, that’s right. That is exactly what we did.

      While on a gut level, I would him to spend the rest of his life in a jail cell with Gerry Sandusky, I have no issue with him being tried in a military court.

      • Tourist  On April 21, 2013 at 4:15 AM

        How about in — whatever they call it — the normal criminal court in Boston?

        • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 12:48 PM

          He isn’t a normal criminal. Even O said he committed an act of terrorism.

          I know he’ll be tried in a criminal court and I understand, legally, why this is so and why it should be so. A lot of my responses to you guys guys crying about what O is being stopped from doing is to thank God for the pesky Constitution that prevents him from ruining this country any more than he already has. I can’t then turn around and say ignore the Constitution in cases like these esp. when there is no legal precedent to do so.

          I still would like him to be hung by his balls

          It’s just that reading crap like what UMOC wrote above makes me want to string him up by his balls (if he had any)

  • Devildog  On April 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM

    Tourist, if there was any panic, any gross overreaction, it was by you. What is your problem other than Anonymous?

  • Devildog  On April 21, 2013 at 12:18 PM

    Off topic but something I’ve written about before-“social science” studies.

    Today’s PG reports on a study from UCLA’s Anderson School of Management to be published this month in the Academy of Management Journal. The paper is called, ” The Downfall of Extroverts and Rise of Neurotics: the Dynamic Process of Status Allocation in Task Groups”. Quite impressive, no?

    Anyway, I’m not clairvoyant but I could have predicted how the study would turn out-the title tells all you need to know. Just one example of what I talked about.

  • Tourist  On April 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM

    “. . . thank God for the pesky Constitution that prevents [Obama] from ruining this country any more than he already has.” (Anonymous)

    “Tourist, if there was any panic, any gross overreaction, it was by you.” (Devildog)

    Gentlemen, thank you. Both of those statements stopped me short. I may be missing something, or may be too wrapped up. If the only panicking and overreacting has been by me, no one wants to know about it more than I do. If the president is ruining the country, already has in some ways, I need to open my eyes.

    A single example each, please.

    • Devildog  On April 21, 2013 at 4:05 PM

      Wasn’t talking about the Constitution but, rather, how you interposed your feelings about Anonymous (going way back) to the Boston massacre (and how your “feelings” may have clouded your judgment).

      “A confused, apolitical, teenager (soon to be out of his teens)”. A mob of U.S.Senators and blog lunatics with pitchforks and torches. I accuse you of the same thing you accuse the U.S. media of re the Japan earthquake. What’s the problem-one day of acting with caution and the next day back to normal isn’t good enough for you.

      Are you in Japan because your personal liberties were taken away from you-or because you are in panic mode that they will be. Not accusing you of this but your comments are just another (unwarranted) criticism of the American people’s customs, mores, practices, belief’s, etc. Maybe you limited your criticisms, however, to the tea partiers

      • Tourist  On April 21, 2013 at 4:45 PM

        Devildog,

        You doing me: “A mob of U.S.Senators and blog lunatics with pitchforks and torches. I accuse you of the same thing you accuse the U.S. media of re the Japan earthquake.”

        I characterized the senators and blog lunatics as a mob, panicking. I accused the U.S. media of making something up, projecting their own panic. Where I panicked, I still don’t see.

        You: “What’s the problem-one day of acting with caution and the next day back to normal isn’t good enough for you.”

        “Act of war.” “No longer a citizen.” “Not an ordinary criminal.” “The constitution doesn’t apply.” “Guantanamo.” “Military court.” “Torture.” “Water board.” Never mind various hangings.

        If now we are back to normal, what was that? If not panic – just caution – may I at least call it melodramatic? Did we get our money’s worth?

        • Devildog  On April 21, 2013 at 5:48 PM

          You “overreacted” so much in your “erroneous” opinion on how the American media and people reacted to the Boston massacre that it appeared as if you were in a panic mode as to the future of this country in complying with our Constitution. That’s where you and Anonymous appear to share a common concern; albeit for different reasons.

          Neither you nor the U.S. media “were there”, you both were erroneous, you accused the media of making something up and projecting their own “panic”. I accuse you of the same thing. You quote a few things from a few people and you believe that is justification for claiming “panic” in the country.

          With all those AK-47’s out there, I haven’t read of any Muslims, or even Hindus, shot (as yet). But I would like to see a lot more FBI profiling done. But let’s remove all those video cameras on the street-I don’t want to get caught speeding.

          • Tourist  On April 21, 2013 at 8:29 PM

            Devildog, sorry for the delay. I did not notice this comment from you until just now.

            You: (Quote) You “overreacted” so much in your “erroneous” opinion on how the American media and people reacted to the Boston massacre that it appeared as if you were in a panic mode as to the future of this country in complying with our Constitution. (Unquote)

            My erroneous opinion of how the media covered Boston? I gave no opinion on that. I linked to a Salon article that was critical and said of the article: “I certainly do not know if that is an appropriate, fair or accurate description, . . . .”

            My erroneous opinion of how the American people reacted? First, if I have to stipulate each time that nothing I say applies every time, everywhere to everybody, I will. As I write this, it appears federal prosecutors are about ready to file charges, presumably in federal court. Yesterday, it was calls for “enemy combatant” status, whatever-it-takes interrogation, and sending messages to monolithic “radical Islam.” Whatever portion of the American people that was – “senators to blog lunatics” – I said it overreacted. I called it a mob.

            In contrast, I advocated letting the system work: “The suspect is in custody. We have every opportunity to demonstrate the American Way to the world – our commitment to our own proclaimed values – and no reason not to.”

            If that was “panic mode,” it may explain why I still can’t see it.

            • Devildog  On April 21, 2013 at 9:21 PM

              Tourist, you’re too disingenuous by a half in this case.

              Why did you mention U.S. media reaction to the quake in the first place, it was projection, it was outrageous, it pissed them off, the Americans are this and that. Just keep me saaaafe. Concluded with, “From them”- no not from me, from them. Then the cite from that ridiculous article from Salon (you guys can’t help citing Salon, Slate, etc.-and complain about Fox) and say it’s them not me.

              Forget I the word panic. Don’t stipulate but don’t take the words of a few and generalize. Your posts were unworthy because you made a mountain out of a molehill, especially when a real mountain had occurred. You, by citing the Salon article, the quake reporting and your own words at the least implied that, “look how those …Americans reacted”, and I resent that. Maybe not panic mode but, even worse, denigration of many more than the ones whose comments you mentioned.

              You want us to demonstrate the “American way”, at least the way you see it, to the “world”. What b.s. – to whom in the world? What good will it do us-make you feel better. I believe in the Constitution and accept (though not always agree) with how SCOTUS decides. As it once said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

              But I digress.

              • Tourist  On April 21, 2013 at 11:37 PM

                Devildog, why did I mention the earthquake reporting? That’s a good question. The facts were simple and clear. Panic was being reported and there was none. Two reasons why that might be: (1) Dramatic headlines. (2) Reflex assumption that there had to be panic. I assumed mostly #2, reinforced by #1. But why the reflex assumption? I assumed projection. Was I saying Americans panic/overreact? Yes, as a generalization, as a matter of degree, tend to, with all the stipulations and caveats, in contrast, sometimes, to other identifiable groups. My point was overreaction, not the earthquake, so those actual thoughts flowed in the other direction.

                You: (Quote) . . . your own words at the least implied that, “look how those …Americans reacted”, and I resent that. (Unquote)

                They did. I did. What do you resent? Generalizing? Stereotyping? (Profiling?) That I got it wrong? This is a whole other discussion.

                From what you are saying, I can see why you say “denigration,” but that is not what I meant. Even if I could prove (I can’t) that “Americans overreact X% more than Some Other Group,” it would still be true that every labeled group overreacts, and overreaction would be only one of a zillion behaviors we could be talking about.

                I just read the Salon article again. It’s clearly about “political and media hysteria,” not about the people of Boston. If I implied anything about the people of Boston, it was unintentional and I was wrong.

                You say I made a mountain out of a molehill. The blog is a molehill. Senators count.

                And: “don’t take the words of a few and generalize.”

                What else do we have to work with? The overreaction I was lambasting was here. It depends on who the few are and whether they are representative of something bigger. If they aren’t representative of you, then I don’t mean you.

                I noticed you basically stayed out of it. I wanted to. You’re wise. I’m weak.

                You come close to calling me anti-American sometimes. We all make mistakes.

                • Devildog  On April 21, 2013 at 11:59 PM

                  Not anti-America, Tourist, but sometimes (in acts of generalization) anti-American attitudes, mores, etc.-maybe in expecting/demanding much of your own.

                  Intended or not, I accept your previous posts as not intending (totally) what I inferred and your last post as sort of a gomenasai.

                  Good night-I’ll look for your next post in the morning if one is forthcoming.

                  • Tourist  On April 22, 2013 at 5:16 AM

                    Good morning! I’m baaaaaack! To business: Is the iPad orders of magnitude more useful to you yet? Seriously, you need to know how to write and SAVE stuff, and how to copy and paste. Don’t let the entire visit go to waste. Anything you can also learn about apps and iCloud, you can teach me later. I’ll have the next model as soon as the local store does, which I was hoping would be in March.

                    • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 8:26 AM

                      Plenty of time to learn, Tourist, as I am not visiting-I’m back home in the ‘Burgh and both my daughters and families live about 15 minutes away. How about dem Bucs?

                      I’m curious what you lefties think of David Shribman. I can’t figure him out (politically), which is much to his credit. A voice of reason in that wildly leftist paper.

    • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM

      Single example? I can do better than that.

      the counter-productive stimulus, O’care, O’s draconian regulations and the unprecedented increases in the welfare state and the debt which will diminish the economic growth of this country for the next 2 generations.

      • Tourist  On April 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

        No it won’t.

        • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 5:13 PM

          And you say there are no differences. 50% of the country believes this to be true

          • Little_Minx  On April 21, 2013 at 5:17 PM

            Yet they elected and reelected Obama.

            • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 5:28 PM

              We live in a media age where style counts. He starts with 47% of the vote without having to say a word. The MSM helped him get the other 4%

              What people are realizing is he has no substance. He couldn’t even get his own party to vote for something 90% of the public supports.

              He is already a lame duck. I can’t wait for the 2014 elections.

        • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM

          And the other half is clueless or doesn’t care or both

          • Little_Minx  On April 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM

            Maybe you’d like for their votes to be suppressed…

            • Tourist  On April 21, 2013 at 5:40 PM

              Bingo!

              • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 5:46 PM

                I love it when liberals don’t get their way – would you like some cheese with that whine

                • Little_Minx  On April 21, 2013 at 5:51 PM

                  That whining sound is coming from conservatives who lost the last two Presidential elections.

              • Little_Minx  On April 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM

                Despite their avowed dislike of taxation, they must pine for the days of poll taxes — although the expense and inconvenience of distance and/or time entailed in obtaining an ID that meets Voter ID laws are de facto poll taxes.

                And let’s not forget those “tests” where certain voters were asked questions so arcane that they were likely bound to fail, and be denied voter registration.

                • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 5:53 PM

                • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 5:58 PM

                  Thanks for reminding me how conservatives are all a bunch of ignorant racists.

                  If you hadn’t of said something, I would have forgotten to pick up my KKK regalia at the dry cleaners.

                  BTW, did you know the Democratic party had had a senator in office until 2010 who was a former Grand Kleegle of the KKK

                  • Little_Minx  On April 21, 2013 at 11:18 PM

                    Irrelevant.

                    • anonymous  On April 21, 2013 at 11:24 PM

                      It is always irrelevant when a Dem is a racist (Byrd is certainly not the only one by any stetch of the imagination, just the most egregious), but if a Repub makes any comment about how bad of a prez Obama is (the worst in history), you guys immediately scream racism when there is ample proof that O is, in fact, the worst prez in history

                    • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 12:15 AM

                      Byrd’s mistakes were many decades ago, while “if a Repub makes any comment about how bad of a prez Obama is” is in the past five years. And no, “we” don’t “scream racism” — not immediately or otherwise. As to Obama’s quality as President, you’re stating an opinion as if it were fact. Such dubious rhetorical “skills” wouldn’t pass muster in a junior high debate competition.

  • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 12:55 AM

    Please!!!! That is your response whenever someone criticizes O. Tourist has accused me of that himself

    Failed economic – stimulus, regulations, O’care and higher taxes will stagnate this economy for the foreseeable future; foreign policy that 4 years ago would have been ridiculed by lefties (drones, rendition, Gitmo still open, invading an Arab country for no real reason, Benghazi – I am sure I forgot something)

    Dividing this country because of his policies and nothing to do with race. Racial relations are worse since he became prez because he often alienates people he looks down on – ‘clinging to guns and religion’ comment doomed any gun contrp; legislation not that any of it should have been passed in the first place.

    Anything else? Oh, I got an A in English in 8th grade. Ms. Dunn, my 8th grade English teacher, told me I was a master debater

    • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 1:28 AM

      “[M]aster debater”? She probably left out the “de” in her assessment of your “talents.”

      • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM

        It was a little joke – you said I wouldn’t win an 8th grade debate. Congratulations on making a joke my a 10 year old boy would laugh at

        • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 11:01 AM

          And who said minx couldn’t come up (oh, what did I just say) worthwhile?

          • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM

            Jealousy.

  • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 2:32 PM

    Text of complaint against Tsarnaev:
    http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Original_PDF/2013/04/22/criminal_complaint_130421_1847__1366653273_0367.pdf

    • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM

      Yup, that seems to have been the problem — 2 URLs in a single post.

  • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 3:16 PM

    “Hundreds Show Up to Block Protests at Bombing Victim’s Funeral / The Westboro Baptist Church has said it will picket outside of victim Krystle Campbell’s services:
    http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/04/22/teamsters-local-25-westboro-baptist-church

    Apparently the WBCs were a no-show today. They also chickened-out on their threat to picket Newtown funerals too, so maybe they’re finally losing their nerve (let’s hope).

  • Tourist  On April 22, 2013 at 7:31 PM

    Devildog asks above what the lefties think of David Shribman, whom Devildog calls a voice of reason (I’d bet money Devildog is inspired by this weeks social security piece) and who sits atop the operating structure of what Devildog calls “that wildly leftist paper,” featuring, along with nationally syndicated columnists of all stripes, locals such as Ruth Ann Dailey and Jack Kelly – although the presence of Kelly may not demonstrate the paper’s balance because he’s so dishonest (the paper’s most factually-corrected and retracted, I’m sure, although I don’t have a count) that conservatives complain he’s kept on to make them look bad.

    I like Mr. Shribman. I enjoy the historical perspective he often brings. He reminds me of things I had forgotten. I have to say I am not in the habit of reading him regularly. Some of his topics interest me more than others, so it’s a matter of whether the title catches my eye. Sometimes I agree with him. Sometimes I don’t. Usually when I don’t, he has a point. Sometimes when I don’t, I suspect he’s just trying to be “fair.”

    If anyone missed it, this is Mr. Shribman’s last week:

    http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/david-shribman/49-years-four-months-25-days-todays-america-is-as-far-removed-from-jfks-era-as-his-was-from-world-war-i-683376/

    In some sort of contrast, consider Mr. Simpson. I might be his first reader every week because of the time zones. He writes on my interests, obviously, and I find it very easy to agree, at least in the main, with almost everything he says. It’s when I consider all of it as package that I disagree. “The United States should not do this or be there.” “The United States should not do that or be here.” He makes a persuasive case each time. In sum, the United States should not do anything or be anywhere. Sorry.

    Sort of how I feel reading UMOC.

    • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 8:40 PM

      Also, Shribman’s a huge baseball fan, so he can never be all bad 😉

      • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 9:50 PM

        And a Red Sox fan too. I grew up in The Bronx as one.

        • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 11:02 PM

          A Sox fan in the Bronx? Amazing you survived to adulthood 😉

          • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 11:12 PM

            Surviving physically was easy, mentally a little more difficult. Why would anyone attack me physically when their team was winning all the time and mine losing to them?

            And that’s my excuse for believing what I do today. And, by the way, I grew up in a Roosevelt Democratic family and was the first, and maybe still the only one, to break ranks-1952.

    • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 9:38 PM

      Let’s see – 7 columnists, 4 clear lefties and I think Schribman is a closeted lefty. He is the editor so he tries to play it straight but every time he looks back he tends to praise some ‘respected’ lefty.

      When was the last time the paper endorsed a Repub candidate for prez?

    • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 9:43 PM

      Tourist, Shribman’s S.S. column was the first of his I read in months. In the past, I have told him how I respected bot his analytical and writing abilities, as well as his historical perspective. To me he’s as reasoned as they come-and that’s not because I always agree with him.

      As for Simpson, he’s on my shit list, mainly for the reason you said but also because I consider him anti-Israel and U.S. (neither can do anything right) and an unreconstructed, State Dept. Arabist.

      As for the PG, I refer you to the editorial and op-Ed pages- while it may have a couple of moderate, it is populated mostly by left-wing flamethrowers.

  • Tourist  On April 22, 2013 at 8:45 PM

    No one is all bad, Minx. Some approach it asymptotically.

    • Tourist  On April 22, 2013 at 8:52 PM

      • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 10:00 PM

        Tourist, how do you do that. I tried real hard today to link something that appeared on CNBC at 3:21 P.M. but failed. It had to do with much of Big Pharma no longer doing research against superbugs, one reason being the cost of research vs. possible benefit to the company. My point was going to be the unintended consequence of government negotiating/ setting prices. U.S. consumers pay the price for research that the world benefits from but the choice is doing that or see far fewer breakthrough drugs because the incentives won’t be there to risk shareholder monies.

        • Tourist  On April 22, 2013 at 10:06 PM

          Devildog, how do I post a link? My way is to go to that webpage (article, YouTube, etc.), COPY the page address from the window at the top of my browser, and PASTE that into my comment, either directly into the comment box, or into what I am writing in Word (that doesn’t matter), which I will copy into the comment box when I’m done. How the video appears here, I have no idea.

    • umoc193  On April 22, 2013 at 10:13 PM

      Believe it or not I have a life outside this blog and occasionally exercise my (non-miranda)rights to enjoy it.

      If, as I believe Minx wrote, Tsarnaev is intubated, he cannot talk. I know that from experience. Secondly, barring torture, he cannot be forced to talk, Miranda or not. In fact, in a regular criminal case such as this, if the suspect were not in custody and ambulatory, he could not only refuse to answer questions but he could get up and walk out, or ask officers to leave his home if that’s where they are.

      The purpose of Miranda is to protect a suspect/defendant’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. He can be questioned about anything but if he is in custody and treated as a likely perpetrator of the criminal act, without the warnings being given anything he says cannot be used against him. Since police always prefer a confession, this is very important.

      Of course even after reading those rights police often have little tricks they use to persuade defendants to talk. For instance in the Central Park Five case even though the boys really didn’t know each other, they were told that they had been named by the others as being more involved so to save their onw necks they gave confessions that minimized their roles while stressing the egregious acts of the others. They believed that by doing so they would be able to go home. At least seven years later for most of them they finally did get to go home, after being in prison for a crime they did not commit.

      Now as for the nonsense about enemy combatants and military commissions. Lighten up folks! This is a case of the murder of three people by allegedly two misfits. The only differences between them and Jared Loughner, Adam Lantz, James Holmes or numerous other public murderers is the type of weapon used and the country where they were born and their religion.

      Same effect in all, scared the shit out of plenty of people with their actions by killing people in a public space where they had reasonable expectations of safety.

      Funny that the two-faced Lindsey Graham would advocate Tsarnaev being treated as other than a regular criminal defendant. He wrote the law that basically prevents some of these terrorism laws being used against American citizens.

      Too, it is absurd that some of you as well as many others keep pushing for special treatment. Since 9/11 there have been 500 criminal convictions in civilian courts of “terrorists” and 7, that’s SEVEN, convictions of them in military tribunals. Seems to me the criminal courts system is pretty effective in dealing with such miscreants.

      Emily Bazelon presents her own excellent perspective here. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/tsarnaev_an_enemy_combatant_john_mccain_and_lindsey_graham_s_harmful_campaign.single.html

      Not that I minimize the deaths and maimings that occurred in Boston, but there is nothing extraordinary about them given the thousands of murders that take place across this country every year. Blow someone’s leg off? How about burning them alive? Deadly schrapnel into one’s chest cavity? How about sixty-seven stab wounds to an elderly woman’s face, chest, back, and pubic area? Or A shotgun blast to the face? Or strangled with one’s own pantyhose? You do know strangling takes several minutes to accomplish, don’t you? Or being given a paralyzing drug and then being set on fire? (Happened right here in Morgantown…drive down, I’ll show you the vacant lot where the house used to be. Guy’s wife, a nurse, is doing life)

      Amazingly none of these atrocities was performed by a Muslim. Some of the killers were considered to be good Christians.

      Now, as to the questions as to whether I have balls enabling me to be strung up by them, I can provide many witnesses to confirm their presence.

      • Tourist  On April 22, 2013 at 10:19 PM

        Many witnesses? We’re they willing witnesses?

        • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 10:33 PM

          Probably his doctors and nurses, and maybe someone who became enamored with him from reading his brilliant commentary.

          Why, Tourist, did you accuse me of trying to drive a wedge between the two of you when it was obvious that any effort by me to do that was not necessary.

          • Tourist  On April 22, 2013 at 10:36 PM

            Oh, Dog, you still get that wrong. The truth is out there.

            • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 10:57 PM

              Where, Tourist. Can you provide me with a cite? Please!

              • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 11:08 PM

                According to tonight’s news, Tsarnaev cannot speak not only due to intubation but also apparently due to damage to his throat. He also evidently is sometimes unconscious or foggy (perhaps due to painkiller). However, he IS communicating a bit by writing. Also, he was read his Miranda rights. So we shall see what transpires…

      • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 10:28 PM

        Thanks UMOC for the tutorial.

        “Murder of three (which one of the four doesn’t count with you) by two alleged misfits”, one a young man and the other a teenager (you forgot that). You may be right that there’s no foreign connection other than birthplace, or any other connection but-how the fuck do you know that?

        • umoc193  On April 22, 2013 at 11:49 PM

          ““Murder of three (which one of the four doesn’t count with you) by two alleged misfits”, one a young man and the other a teenager (you forgot that). You may be right that there’s no foreign connection other than birthplace, or any other connection but-how the fuck do you know that?”

          Well if there’s been a 4th death that’s news to me but it changes nothing.

          You are assuming a foreign connection but how the fuck do you know that?

          I’ve got more facts AND more law on my side than you can ever hope to amass.

          • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 12:18 AM

            You da man, UMOC. For you to read my post (10:28 P.M.) and respond by saying I am “assuming a foreign connection” shows how truly fuckin ignorant you are-despite your self-acclaimed legal acumen.

            • umoc193  On April 23, 2013 at 8:00 PM

              Yeah, I da man, DD, first and foremost and always.

              Haven’t you assumed a foreign connection? All your thoughtless posts certainly point in that direction.

              • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 9:20 PM

                No, da man, I never assumed a foreign connection and invite you to cite something I wrote that would give you that indication. Tourist was correct when he said that you don’t even read (or understand) what I have written before you go insane.

          • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 12:21 AM

            Like, UMOC, how about the three killed by the bombing and the cop who was shot to death later, all “allegedly” by the”misfits”.

            • umoc193  On April 23, 2013 at 8:01 PM

              Yes, I did forget about the cop, thinking of the main offense. mea culpa mea culpa mea culpa.

              If only you and some others here were so quick to admit when you are wrong.

              • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 9:25 PM

                Da man, you’re such a big man to admit you were wrong when the whole world knew you were wrong. Any more mea culpas to be forthcoming from da man?

      • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 10:35 PM

        As I said on another blog, UMOC represents everything that is wrong in this country. The older brother was clearly a radical Islamist terrorist. This guy got kicked out of mosque after he became enraged after the imam held up Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of a man to emulate. Maybe or maybe not part of a network. While not likely, not implausibe that the older maggot was trained in an al Queda camp

        He was on the FBI watch list. Were Jared Loughner, Adam Lantz or John Holmes on the FBI watch list. Were any of them interviewed by the FBI for being a possible terrorist threat?

        And why did the FBI question him? BECAUSE HE WAS POSSIBLY A RADICAL MUSLIM.

        The FBI dropped the ball big time. Not only did they not take the Russian warnings seriously, that they didn’t knock on his door 10 minutes after the 2nd bomb is unreal. What could be the explanation for that? they obvilously quickly believed it was radical Islam because they questioned the Saudi national.

        Keep deluding yourself UMOC. It is quite a world you live in. Scary to say the least

        • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM

          I’m also not going to “rush to judgment” about the FBI as to what it did, didn’t do or should have done. I guess I’m just not as bright as some others.

          • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 10:51 PM

            Maybe he slipped through the cracks and it is hard to monitor everyone. So on that part, you can give them a pass. But he was on the list. Why did they have to release his picture to get info. from the public to know who it was? Is therre 1000 potential terrorists sitting around Boston? I don’t know the answer to that but given the Russians warning about him, I just don’t get it,

            One oother note – is there any info. indicating that the Muslims in that mosque contacted authorities before but esp, after their pictures were posted? If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

        • umoc193  On April 22, 2013 at 11:39 PM

          “As I said on another blog, UMOC represents everything that is wrong in this country”

          Okay, you wrote that to get a rise out of me and you are successful.

          You are nothing but a fucking troll, a little punk who has no morals, no brains, no conscience, and absolutely nothing to contribute intellectually to any discussion.

          By your own admission you are a pathetic cowardly leech on society and you parade your paranoid, bizarre opinions in order to mask your emasculated meager, meaningless life.

          As the old saying goes if I came upon your burning body I wouldn’t piss on you to put the fire out.

          You seem to get some special delight in attacking me and telling lies about me but I am far stronger physically and mentally than are you with infinitely more human understanding and compassion and appreciation of art and beauty and all the good things in life than you even have knowledge of.

          I happen to subscribe to the US Constitution and the ideals contained therein and which you are perfectly willing to shred just to further your own warped disgusting view of the universe.

          You are nothing but a little piece of worthless shit.

          You make your comments in a deperate attempt for attention and validation and you are nothing but an annoyance.

          In the worst moments of my life I have still existed far above the plane you are on and you can criticize me all you want but all you do is demonstrate time and again how bereft you are of any capacity for human interaction on any level.

          I know you will laugh at this and I really don’t give a damn. Having your approval is the least of my worries in life. It ranks behind how much I care about the pain the grass on my lawn feels as it is being mowed.

          I do feel sorry for your family or anyone else who cannot avoid dealing with you.

          • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 11:47 PM

            -You are nothing but a fucking troll, a little punk who has no morals, no brains, no conscience, and absolutely nothing to contribute intellectually to any discussion.
            -By your own admission you are a pathetic cowardly leech on society and you parade your paranoid, bizarre opinions in order to mask your emasculated meager, meaningless life.
            -You are nothing but a little piece of worthless shit.

            In the worst moments of my life I have still existed far above the plane you are on

            Oh and – LOL

          • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 12:01 AM

            All I am saying is ask the questions. Are they acting alone? Maybe, maybe not. Did the older maggot get training at an al Queda camp? What is the harm in asking the question esp. if it is true that he just spent 6 months in Chechnya?

            What did his the older maggot’s wife know? Maybe he can provide some insight on that.

            Maybe they did act alone. If so, OK. Even if they did, it doesn’t they aren’t as least a part of radical Islam’s war on the US. Is this going to be the way they attack us from now on knowing they can’t do the big things like they did on 9/11?

            Any info. that this guy can provide may actually stop the next attack by radical Islam.

            This is more likely to be the case than any gun law being proposed by Congress will stop the next Newtown.

      • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 10:44 PM

        And he could be considerd an enemy combatant even if he is read his miranda rights. It wouldn’t mean he would tried by a military tribunal. He certainly will not be. But they can interrogate him to gain info.

        O won’t do this because he doesn’t want them (radical Muslims) to get mad at us. Only if we just be nice to them and understand their hardships, we will all get along and there will be no more attacks like 9/11

        Well, I got some bad news for you, there have been how many attacks since O took office – too many to count. It doesn’t appear his apology tour worked that well

        Now we learned that the Mounties stopped a planned attack by people who were trained in Iran. How much did the nutjob in charge know? Over/under on the number of months til Bibi bombs the nutjob – 6 months

  • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 10:54 PM

    By the way Tourist, Shribman told me, after I complimented him personally but questioned how he could allow the editorial and op-Ed pages to be the way they are, that he had nothing to do with those areas of the paper.

    anonymous, I don’t have an issue with a closeted left-winger since, by definition, he is fair in his writings and hides his personal biases.

    • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 10:56 PM

      Not saying I have a problem with him, just pointing out he is likely a liberal trying to play it straight. He does an OK job of doing it.

      • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 11:02 PM

        Don’t know the answer re Shribman or your 10:51 post.

  • Tourist  On April 22, 2013 at 11:00 PM

    I do not know who we are torturing these days, what our reasons are, how or where it’s being done, because that information in pretty well locked down. At the time of Abu Ghraib, we knew more. Basically, we were not torturing terrorists for information, critical or otherwise. We were torturing suspects to find out if they were terrorists – individually, or sometimes all the men and boys and in a neighborhood, picked up in sweeps.

    Everyone will recall the Abu Ghraib photographs. It was known then that there were thousands more, and videos. The assumption was that those would eventually be released, but as far as I know they have not been. Senators saw them in closed-door sessions. I happen to see on the news where they were shown exiting one of those sessions. Lindsay Graham looked stunned – which probably explains why he even spoke when reporters rushed to him. I remember it. I googled and found the exact words:

    (Quote)

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, “The American public needs to understand we’re talking about rape and murder here. we’re not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience.” He did not elaborate.

    (Unquote)

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-616338.html

    As I said, somehow there never was much more.

    • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 11:04 PM

      Thx for that info. Tourist. Could we get back to the topic at hand – what do we do about radical Islamisats like the 2 that just killed 3 people in Boston?

      • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 11:10 PM

        Feed them bacon?

        • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 11:15 PM

          I don’t kow about that, based on the fact one of them is dead and the other apparently can’t speak, that might be difficult. Can you eat bacon through a straw?

          I figure if it makes him tell us about ties to other radical Islamists here or abroad, it might be worth a shot.

          • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 11:18 PM

            There are people out there who don’t know what real torture is and that offering bacon is that.

            • umoc193  On April 22, 2013 at 11:22 PM

              It’s amazing how many commenters are so bloodthirsty while seeking revenge against other bloddthirsty people.

              Murderous impulses in any human being are not a good thing.

              • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 11:26 PM

                You’re right and I am sure that every person you know does not have murderous impulses

              • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 11:32 PM

                UMOC, I’m rather shocked that you don’t know the difference between murder and killing.

          • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 11:25 PM

            Reading comprehension alert: “like the 2” ≠ “the same 2”

            • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 11:30 PM

              I think you and my friend may have the reading comprehesion issues: ‘like’ the two – you know, as in what do we to stop futer attacks on this country by radical Islam ‘like’ the attacks in Boston?

              • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 11:46 PM

                “Like” the two means that most likely they’re alive (since dead men tell no tales) and still able to swallow. If they can’t swallow, the bacon can be puréed and whooshed into the tummy via a stomach or naso-gastric feeding tube (leaving aside, of course, their religious rights).

                • anonymous  On April 22, 2013 at 11:48 PM

                  Whatever

                  • Little_Minx  On April 22, 2013 at 11:53 PM

                    We see what you’re doing here. You make a statement, someone replies to it based on the reasonable assumption that you meant what you said, then you pull a switcheroo by unilaterally claiming it meant something else.

                    • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 12:03 AM

                      No you are misreading something I wrote, I go through the courtesy of demonstrating where you are wrong and then you double down on your miscomprehension.

                      I can’t fix stupid

                    • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 12:07 AM

                      “[W]hat do we do about radical Islamisats [sic] LIKE [my emphasis] the 2 that just killed 3 people in Boston?” You said “LIKE” them, not them themselves — then switch to them themselves, which you employ as a pretext to hurl unwarranted insults. You are engaging in a verbal shell game, but we see what you’re doing.

      • umoc193  On April 22, 2013 at 11:24 PM

        “Thx for that info. Tourist. Could we get back to the topic at hand – what do we do about radical Islamisats like the 2 that just killed 3 people in Boston?”

        You do exactly what has been done with other murederers in American hostory. You charge them in criminal courts, put on a fair trial, and if found guilty hand down an appropriate sentence…life without parole.

    • Devildog  On April 22, 2013 at 11:16 PM

      Tourist, I think the first sentence of your post was erroneously omitted. You know, where you said you did not know “if” we are torturing.

  • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 12:03 AM

    What if some of the 170 or so hospitalized victims don’t have health insurance (or cash) to pay their medical bills accruing from their injuries? Of course, Massachusetts has a state version of Obamacare — oh, the humanity! — but what if they opted out, or reside outside the Commonwealth? What about mental health insurance to treat, e.g., PTSD or clinical depression? Will they figuratively have to beg for alms to pay off their debt? Some of those medical bills are sure to be whopping.

    • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 12:47 AM

      The UCA (Unaffordable Care Act) is going down and there is nothing your boy can do about it,

      And before you call me racist, when the young, cool people say someone is ‘your boy’, it is a good thing. It means that person is your friend and he has your back. And that’s how I am using it here.

      • umoc193  On April 23, 2013 at 8:03 PM

        The ACA is alive and well and will survive for many many years. You have no concept of what is involved in it, what provisions it contains, and how it works to the benefit of Americans. Perfect? No, never said it was. Your little mind, if indeed you have a mind at all, is incapable of grasping simple facts and truths.

        • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 9:39 PM

          So now, according to da man, “the ACA is alive and well…” is a fact not an opinion.

          • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 2:07 AM

            The ACA is indeed alive and well, according to the SCOTUS (including conservative Chief Justice Roberts).

            • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 8:06 AM

              I don’t recall Roberts saying anything about Obamacare being “well”.

        • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 12:10 AM

          Neither apparently does Nancy Pelosi

          • Tourist  On April 24, 2013 at 12:40 AM

            This is just more of your chronic dishonesty. The five seconds are real. The dishonesty is that this was said to you before. You know it.

            (Quote)

            . . . “pass it to see what’s in it” was Pelosi . . . her point was to the public – that with all the conflicting information being thrown around in the media, by opponents, advocates, and so on, you’ll understand the truth, how good it is – what’s in it – when it passes.

            John Kerry’s “voted for it before voting against it” made sense in context, too, but it was more fun the other way. Romney likes “being able to fire people.”

            (Unquote)

            • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 1:04 AM

              Liberals are always taken out of context but conservatives are always revealing the dark truth of what they believe

              You can nuance Pelosi’s comment – the ultimate Stepford pod person – but Romney’s comments you take at face value.

              You guys wonder why I ridicule you.

              • Tourist  On April 24, 2013 at 1:23 AM

                You really cannot read.

                • Tourist  On April 24, 2013 at 1:54 AM

                  Okay, I should spell it out.

                  I defended Pelosi. I defended Kerry. I defended Romney. You really cannot read.

                  You are a total waste of time and effort, except for the value of demonstrating that, which takes a bit of time but so little no effort.

                  “Stepford pod person?” Does that mean something? Something not inane?

                  • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 2:11 AM

                    I read so many ridiculous things that you guys write I just assumed that you were doing the liberals are nuanced, conservatives are dark bit. You read something a 1000 times and you just start taking it for granted. I am sure I just read the 1st paragraph on Pelosi and then read Romney likes to fire people and, well.

                    Stepford pod person – combination of Stepford wife and pod person

                    From Urban Dictionary
                    Stepford Wife
                    Used to describe a servile, compliant, submissive, spineless wife who happily does her husband’s bidding and serves his every whim dutifully.
                    Pod person
                    A mindless, pliable person who cannot make an informed decision for themselves. A marketers dream. Characterized by a blank glaze, frequent toe tapping and head nodding. The most distinguishing characteristic of a Pod Person is the white ear-buds which attach to their life support.

                    Nancy Pelosi – Stepford pod person
                    a servile, compliant, submissive, spineless, mindless, pliable person who cannot make an informed decision for herself

                    • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 2:16 AM

                      The consummate Stepford pod-person is the P-G’s Jack Kelly. His column titles always sound ripped from conservative PAC press releases.

  • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 12:18 AM

    Can’t hit ‘Reply’ to Minx at 12:07A

    The topic of our discussion tonite is how to treat the 2 Boston bombers. My position is that we should treat them as enemy combatants.

    Based on the topic of our dicussion, the common sense interpretation of my questtion to Tourist should be thus – what do we do, with respect to the Boston bomber that is still alive, to stop future attacks by radical Islam like the one that occurred in Boston?

    • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 12:40 AM

      The dead can’t be charged with anything.

      The accused Boston bomber who’s still alive has been charged as a criminal, so that horse has already left the barn. However, based on the physical and forensic evidence, conviction (including the potential for a capital punishment sentence on the federal counts) seems likely, and he’s already communicating via writing, so no further justice would be gained by charging him as an enemy combatant.

      • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 12:48 AM

        How do you know? Have you spoken to him?

        • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM

          How do YOU know? Have YOU spoken to him?

          • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 2:22 PM

            No. That is exactly why they should ask the questions. So we could all know to what extent they are linked to radical Islam so we can stop similar future attacks by other radical Islamists.

            • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM

              They ARE asking him questions, and he’s responding in writing. Due process is operating just as it was meant to.

              • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 3:06 PM

                Once given miranda rights, he doesn’t have to talk unless they treat him as an enemy combatant which they are not doing.

                Once given miranda rights, his lawyer gets to start negotiating the price of the info. – i.e., no death penalty. If he is treated as an enemy combatant, which it is becoming more and more clear that he is, he can be asked questions without having to deal with the lawyer.

                • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 3:15 PM

                  And yet he’s communicating, despite Miranda. His only hope is to depict older brother as John Mohammed to his Lee Boyd Malvo, but I suspect that mightn’t work.

                • umoc193  On April 23, 2013 at 8:08 PM

                  ” If he is treated as an enemy combatant, which it is becoming more and more clear that he is, he can be asked questions without having to deal with the lawyer.”

                  In what fantasy world do you live you troll?

  • Tourist  On April 23, 2013 at 4:06 AM

    Somewhere in the middle is as good a place to start as any.

    UMOC’s 330 words at April 22, 2013 at 11:39 PM sound about right.

    UMOC, Devildog is not Anonymous.

    Devildog asks you: “How the fuck do you know”? You respond: “How the fuck do you know?” Obviously neither of you knows. Devildog then calls you “truly fuckin ignorant.” Then things go downhill. Viewed out of context, one might concluded that Devildog started and sustained it. My third-party, unbiased, certain-to-be-respected observation in context is that you had it coming.

    UMOC, the gang has been on this for a day (ages in internet time), you return, announce that you have a life, share a medical tidbit, magnanimously explain the purpose of Miranda – as Devildog correctly did yesterday – and then you dispense this: “In fact, in a regular criminal case such as this, if the suspect were not in custody and ambulatory, he could not only refuse to answer questions but he could get up and walk out, or ask officers to leave his home if that’s where they are.”

    What the fuck is that? “In a case such as this”? You mean this case? We are talking about this case. “If not in custody”? He was in custody – and then some. “Ask officers to leave”?

    “Condescending” is a cliché, but lordy!

    UMOC, dispute Devildog as much as you like, but listen first. He gives you that courtesy. I know because I read you both.

    Devildog says: “Tourist, I think the first sentence of your post was erroneously omitted. You know, where you said you did not know ‘if’ we are torturing.”

    Devildog, in all our time together, you have never acted, or treated me as, stupid before.

    Minx, you’re still my friend, right?

    ===

    I didn’t want to do any of this, but there was no way I was going to let the thread sit at 199 comments.

    • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 2:02 PM

      Konnichi wa, Tourist!

  • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 11:08 AM

    Why did Tom Brokaw, when discussing the Boston bombers on some Sunday talk show, say we have to reconsider our use of drones? If these two idiots are no different than than the fruits Lanza or Holmes, what does stopping the use of drones have anything to do with it?

    I think when most people discuss stopping the use of drones, they say it because it leads to terrorist attacks on the US by radical Islam.

    Oh, in writing that last sentence, I now see why Tom said that.

    Tourist: The next time UMOC is right about something wll be the first time.

  • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 1:19 PM

    I read Norman’s column today. Amazing as this may sound, I actually agree with almost all of it.

    He discusses the 2 Boston bombers and indicates that they may have done it for one of several reasons – anything from Tamerlan being politically radicalized overseas during his trips back to southern Russia to doing it for the sake of a foreign nationalist ideology or out of a perverted sense of religious duty. He even says they may have been nihilists

    While he does minimize the likelihood of them being a part of a bigger radical Islamic terrorist cell (something I pretty much agree with), Norman, unlike my friend, never compared these radical Islamic terrorists with random acts of violence committed by the likes of Lanza and Holmes.

    It is almost as if Norman, unlike my friend, at least has a tenuous grip on reality

  • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM

    For Toadsly! (and any other fans of “Call the Midwife”) — it turns out that actress Miranda Hart (“Chummy”), although new to American fans, is a noted and popular comedienne in the UK. At the time of Prince Williams’ marriage, she was quoted as follows:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/8531724/Royal-wedding-It-could-have-been-me-says-Miranda-Hart.html

    All hail, Princess Chummy!

    • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

      I could’ve titled this comment a “Miranda warning” 😉

  • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 1:57 PM

    UMOC wrote: “In fact, in a regular criminal case such as this, if the suspect were not in custody and ambulatory, he could not only refuse to answer questions but he could get up and walk out, or ask officers to leave his home if that’s where they are.”

    Dear UMOC, I believe that even if Tsarnaev #2 were hale and hearty, he’d still have already been under arrest ASAP.

  • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 2:57 PM

    [I too am having problems with the “Reply” function on this blog right now].

    I too agreed with almost all of Tony Norman’s column today. The most relevant part may well be this, re brother #2:
    http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/tony-norman/terror-motives-will-likely-never-make-sense-684583

    “…Assuming he spills details about everything he and his brother did and plotted, the best he can look forward to is decades in the isolation of a supermax prison as the price for avoiding execution. Even if he sings like a bird, I suspect we’ll always be left with the fundamental mystery of [why]…”

    The takeaway here is that brother #2 is already communicating (in writing) with questioners.

    • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 3:10 PM

      He was read his miranda rights, so unless treated as an enemy combatant, which it is becoming more clear that he is, the price of the info. will be negotiated by his lawyer – i.e., no death penalty

      • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 3:22 PM

        Testimony from the hijacking victim could likely torpedo any death penalty negotiation.

        • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 3:28 PM

          ‘likely’

          • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 3:38 PM

            Do you think the hijack victim’s testimony can torpedo death penalty negotiation?

            • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 4:09 PM

              It doesn’t matter what I think. This guy needs to be questioned without allowing anyone or anything to provide any incentive to either not provide info. or to provide false info.

              In addition, the lawyer would try to eliminate the possibility of the death penalty in the negotiation for the info. The testimony of the guy who got carjacked would no longer be able to lead to the death penalty.

              • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM

                What if #2 and his attorneys DO manage to negotiate a life-without-parole sentence? What if #2 gets sequestered (you should pardon the expression) away in a remote Federal prison where he’s never heard from again — like Lee Boyd Malvo? Would that be so bad?

                • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 5:16 PM

                  That isn’t the issue. This guy could be hung updide down for the next 60 years or be killed by a firing squad tomorrow, it won’t bring back those 4 Americans (with that said, I prefer death). The key is what info. he has that may help us stop the next attack by radical Islam which I am sure has already been planned

                  Maybe he has no info. I want to know that.

                  • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 5:27 PM

                    You have no way of knowing whether questioning as an enemy combatant will result in divulging of more info, not to mention more truthful info, than questioning under Miranda. Indeed, I recall reading somewhere — UMOC might recall where it was — that “info” revealed under duress (including torture) is on average less truthful.

                    • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM

                      And this is why we should question him – because we have no way of knowing

  • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 4:38 PM

    And today’s stupid-is-as-stupid-does award goes to… Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), for asking: “Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism?”

    Uh, Papa Tsarnaev came from Russia to the US ca. 2002, where he filed for political asylum (and we all know how, even following the fall of the the USSR, the US just loves folks who claim oppression by Russia). Tsarnaev’s wife and minor children — like, who could’ve been clairvoyant enough to have guessed how the two boys (including one who was just 9 years old) would turn out? — were allowed in based on Papa’s asylum status, in the interests of promoting family values.

    Read more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-misguided-question-on-how-the-tsarnaev-brothers-arrived-in-the-united-states/2013/04/22/095ec08c-ab9d-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_blog.html

    • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 5:07 PM

      Uh, I think he is asking the question in general. Why are we allowing people immigrate from places that are home to people who want to kill us?

      We should stop that.

      • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM

        There’s no place where there aren’t SOME people who “want to kill us.” So following such logic, no immigrants should be let in at all.

        Plus, sometimes nations can change — fairly quickly, even — from being our ally to being our enemy, and vice versa, and it’s impossible to be clairvoyant re this.

        • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 5:38 PM

          I think it is something that needs to be explored and may create more issues with immigration reform

      • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 6:32 PM

        “Why are we allowing people immigrate from places that are home to people who want to kill us?”

        N.B. Papa Tsarnaev SOUGHT ASYLUM upon entering the US. By your logic we should also ban asylum-seekers and political refugees from Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.

    • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 5:22 PM

      Is the award limited to politicians-if not, who from this blog is Paul replacing?

      • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 5:42 PM

        In the instant case, it’s legislators who demagogue.

        • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM

          Must be quitte a few legislators on this blog.

          Is Lincoln Mark Twain’s last name?

  • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

    Just for you Tourist. It looks like George W. Bush is starting to be looked at in a different light.

    http://www.whas11.com/news/national/Is-the-public-perception-of-the-GW-Bush-presidency-changing-204269431.html

    • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM

      Since leaving office 43 has been following Lincoln’s dictum, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

      • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 5:55 PM

        I think O’s failed policies are speaking for themselves.

        • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 8:00 PM

          an0nymous takes opinion and states it as fact. There he goes again…

          • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 8:08 PM

            As you say yourself, Bush hasn’t said a word since he left office. Why are his approval ratings going up?

            Failed domestic and foreign policy. What other reason can there be? And who is the author of the current domestic and foreign policy?

          • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 9:33 PM

            So Minx, Anonymous says, “I think…” and you accuse him of “takes an opinion and states it as a fact”. Where, how? Are you and da man one and the same?

            • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 10:43 PM

              He opines that Obama’s policies are “failed” as though that were fact, when they’re not.

              • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 10:47 PM

                He opines as if was fact? Now I’m really confused. I guess he could have said, “I believe, in my opinion and not as a fact…”. Would that have been acceptable to you?

                • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 11:04 PM

                  While it was my opinion, I am interested in what policy that O has implemented that has been successful. Please name one. I bet you can’t. This is to Minx or Toury or UMOC

                  • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 11:13 PM

                    If not a policy implemented sucessfully, how about one continued. That would be droning.

                    • Tourist  On April 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM

                      Devildog, I put it this way once: Look at all the Super Bowls the Steelers were never even in. Obviously it’s a failed franchise.

                      Drones? Fine. But the stimulus, the auto rescue . . . . *If* Obamacare raises costs for everybody and leaves more without coverage, I could still say it was a success as a first step: a program in place; now fix it. Any of those can be discussed realistically – maybe even honestly – but all Anonymous will ever do is say the are “failed policies” with no definition of success or failure, just as liberalism to him is a failed philosophy with nothing more to be said. I’m not playing.

                    • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 12:14 AM

                      Thanks Tourist but just because I mentioned one policy as successful, albeit a continued one, doesn’t mean that I excluded any and all others, implemented or continued, as being successful. It also doesn’t mean that I believe any or all of the others were successful.

                      Parenthetically, though, I don’t believe that doing something is necessarily better than doing nothing or that it’s better to patch and fix than to start from scratch.

                    • umoc193  On April 24, 2013 at 7:04 AM

                      “Devildog, I put it this way once: Look at all the Super Bowls the Steelers were never even in. Obviously it’s a failed franchise.

                      Drones? Fine. But the stimulus, the auto rescue . . . . *If* Obamacare raises costs for everybody and leaves more without coverage, I could still say it was a success as a first step: a program in place; now fix it. Any of those can be discussed realistically – maybe even honestly – but all Anonymous will ever do is say the are “failed policies” with no definition of success or failure, just as liberalism to him is a failed philosophy with nothing more to be said. I’m not playing.”

                      Don’t know what Anon. wants from the ACA. It most definitely is progress. It most definitely is not perfection, but then again, no one ever claimed it was.

                      It still remains, however, largely the same as the Heritage Foundation (read:conservative) proposal from 1989 that was incorporated into a bill introduced by mostly Republican Senators in 1993. Not exactly the same but largely so.

                      It is obvious the GOP then rejected the ACA simply due to Obama being President. There is no other logical reason for totally abandoning a conservative idea.

                    • umoc193  On April 24, 2013 at 7:22 AM

                      Turns out the Tsarnaevs were members of the Weather Underground, not Al Qaeda.

                      “The 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack, according to U.S. officials familiar with the interviews. … Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has specifically cited the U.S. war in Iraq, which ended in December 2011 with the removal of the last American forces, and in Afghanistan, where President Obama has made plans to end combat operations by the end of 2014.”

                      http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/04/23/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_interviews_feds_say_the_brothers_acted_alone_but_that.html

                    • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 12:22 PM

                      Da man, to say that Obamacare is ” largely the same as the Heritage Foundation proposal” and to say that “It is obvious the GOP then rejected the ACA simply due to Obama being president. There is no other “logical reason…” is merely repeating Democratic talking points but typically you in your certainty.

                    • umoc193  On April 26, 2013 at 10:39 PM

                      “Da man, to say that Obamacare is ” largely the same as the Heritage Foundation proposal” and to say that “It is obvious the GOP then rejected the ACA simply due to Obama being president. There is no other “logical reason…” is merely repeating Democratic talking points but typically you in your certainty.”

                      Well, DD I have asked any number of conservatives why all of a sudden they abandoned support for health care reform when what became the ACA was largely their ideas put to work in the first place. Yet, upon Obama assuming ofiice, they immediately took to attacking the very proposed policies they initiated originally. NO ONE, and I do mean no one, here or in any other forum, has ever answered that question. Not that they gave an answer that did not sound right, but absolutely no answer at all, unless you consider the inane blatherings of the asshole formerly known as anonymous, aka dipshit, aka dumb ass, etc. to be an answer.

                      You haven’t answered it. Real live conservative friends of mine have not answered it. No one on ROW answered it. No one on Rob Rogers answered it. No one in P=G letters answered it.

                      Since absolutely NO answer has been forthcoming the only possible answer is that the ideas were rejected merely because Obama was President.

                      No attempt was made to amend the provisions or otherwise alter them to be more acceptable to Republicans. They then refused to vote for the law and constantly criticized it, most especially the individual mandate which most definitely was created first by the Heritage Foundation in 1989. The reason they made that proposal was that in the HTMALA hospitals accepting Medicare patients were required to accept as patients and treat in their emergency rooms anyone who came in, citizen or not, insurance or not, having any ability to pay or not. Conservatives believed that law allowed individuals to escape personal responsibility, which goes against core tenets. (And I won’t argue with that)

                      Now you, instead of offering any sound reasoning as to why support for this form was abandoned choose to attack me personally. I have allowed every opportunity for a rational argument to be made. So what else am I to believe other than what I have declared.

                      Also, I don’t use any “Democratic talking points”. I don’t merely mouth others’ ideas such as you do or especially the idiot/troll anonymous does.

                      So get off your fucking high horse thinking you’ve somehow scored points against me.

                    • Devildog  On April 26, 2013 at 11:18 PM

                      UMOC, I’ve answered your question at least twice previously but you either don’t recognize it as an answer, lack comprehension ability or don’t “hear” what other people say. But I’ll try once more but only once more.

                      To say something is “largely” the same is meaningless because, as you should know, the devil is in the details. For example, to assert that the individual mandate is the be all and end all of Obamacare is not valid. Not for that train wreck, anyway.

                      Also, it is fallacious to assert that we should pass what we agree on and negotiate our differences later, especially if one side gets “everything” they want while the other side believes that what we agree upon is unacceptable if the parts we don’t agree upon are not passed at the same time. I gave this example previously with the Bush tax cuts where you/the Dems said let’s pass it for the non-rich, which we both agree on and we’ll negotiate continuing it for the rich later. Not so fast, though.

                      If you don’t like that answer, too bad!

                    • umoc193  On April 26, 2013 at 11:38 PM

                      “UMOC, I’ve answered your question at least twice previously but you either don’t recognize it as an answer, lack comprehension ability or don’t “hear” what other people say. But I’ll try once more but only once more.

                      To say something is “largely” the same is meaningless because, as you should know, the devil is in the details. For example, to assert that the individual mandate is the be all and end all of Obamacare is not valid. Not for that train wreck, anyway.

                      Also, it is fallacious to assert that we should pass what we agree on and negotiate our differences later, especially if one side gets “everything” they want while the other side believes that what we agree upon is unacceptable if the parts we don’t agree upon are not passed at the same time. I gave this example previously with the Bush tax cuts where you/the Dems said let’s pass it for the non-rich, which we both agree on and we’ll negotiate continuing it for the rich later. Not so fast, though.

                      If you don’t like that answer, too bad!”

                      No you have not. Plus I did not say we should pass what we agree on and negotiate differences later. That is not even a reasonable inference from what I wrote.

                      And when I said it was “largely” the same as the Heritage deal/ GOP 1993 introduced bill I meant that exactly because the two were LARGELY the same. Of course details differed or else I would have said they were identical which I did not.

                      I also did not say the individual mandate is the be all and end all of the ACA.

                      Deliberate misstatements like this destroy what little credibility, if any, you have on this topic.

                    • Devildog  On April 27, 2013 at 12:20 AM

                      Your clear implication is that the Republicans should have voted yes on Obamacare because it is largely the same as the Heritage proposal and it is only logical to assume that GOP opposition was only because Obama was president. Do you stand by that;if yes, I’ve explained why that reasoning is fallacious.

                      My high horse-is that something like the pot calling the kettle back.

                      Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck;aha, I outdid you once again. At least you never can say again that no conservative has ever even attempted to answer your question even if my answer made no sense (to you). I go back to your admiration of the attributes of the authors of the SS article. You have a (very) long way to go.

                    • umoc193  On April 27, 2013 at 12:46 AM

                      You provide no substantial reasons why the GOP abandoned the cause, but then again neither did any of their leadership do so. But, even though I wouldn’t have expected Gop to blanketly agree to the whole shebang, they ended up opposing the end result most especially the parts that were conservative creations in the first place. They then proceeded to lie about the rest and were successful enough in doing so that it was a major factor in the 2010 elections.

                      Just Friday in the P-G in comments on an editorial urging adoption of the Medicaid expansion by Pa. some of the old lies resurfaced.

                    • Devildog  On April 27, 2013 at 6:59 AM

                      UMOC, I told you that just because you agree to some of the parts does not mean you should agree to the”package” without getting what else you want in the package or it contains things to which you object. You counter with you don’t expect the GOP to agree to the whole shebang but you expect them to agree to the package. So, if they don’t agree to the whole shebang, why should they agree to it-merely because it contains one or more parts they like. Ridiculous reasoning. You now, though, have a response so get off the kick of no one has ever…

                      And you, da man who has all the facts and demands facts from others, claims the GOP won the 2010 election by lying about Obamacare without providing one alleged lie (just as A claims Obama won his elections by lying). How many of those lies have turned out to be the case in this “train wreck”.

                    • umoc193  On April 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM

                      Lies that have NOT turned out to be the truth

                      Death Panels
                      Government takeover
                      Congress exempt
                      Health care will be rationed
                      The Advisory Board established under it will determine who gets what treatment.
                      It will cost millions of jobs
                      People will lose their current health insurance
                      Free abortions
                      Illegal immigrants get free care
                      You can go to jail for violating the mandate

                      This is reportage about various poll results on issues just prior to the 2010 elections. Nearly 60% of voters oppsed the ACA.
                      http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010

                      The 2010 Politifact “lie of the year” was “government takeover of health care”
                      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

                      You can find numerous other ratings of ACA claims on that site that back up what I wrote above. No before you make the absurd assertion that Politifact is a “liberal” tool they also rated couple of Obama’s statements about the law as at least not completely true.

                      And most important of all you continue to mischaracterize what I said about the GOP abandoning its own ideas. I refuse to restate my position once again. Instead I offer this reference. http://www.universalclass.com/i/course/reading-comprehension-101.htm

                    • Devildog  On April 27, 2013 at 1:25 PM

                      So, I guess you are saying that at this early stage we are far enough along to make a judgment about what is a lie and what isn’t a lie- about the coming train wreck. For example, the Politico lie of the year, I believe that the main claim is that it will “lead” to government takeover of healthcare-isn’t it a little premature to make that claim, especially when you and others still wanta single-payer system?

                      People have already lost their insurance, illegal immigrants do get free healthcare and I hear rumblings about Congress and staff seeking an exemption.

                      I, for one, am withholding final judgment and I suggest you do the same. Mischaracterize, i think not.

                    • umoc193  On April 27, 2013 at 2:03 PM

                      So you don’t consider claims to be lies if they might come true in the future only after substantial changes are made in present law.

                      I can assert right now that I am 66 years old but that would be a lie. Later in the year it will be true.

                      The sad truth about the provision requiring Congress and aides to procure insurance through excahnges is that it was included for political expediency and was a terrible idea to begin with.

                      These folks are virtually the only folks COMPELLED to give up the private insurance coverage that was perfectly satisfactory to them.The lawmakers and their aides particpipate in the same smorgasboard of private plans that are accesible by all federal civilian employees, over 2 1/2 million people. Congressmen have no special, “magical” plan exclusive of anyone else. But to quell the public perception that they did, they did not only not exempt themselves from the reform, they specifically mandated they would have to leave the government plan and use the exchanges. Particularly for many lower paid aides doing so will be much more expensive for them. Now they pay the same premiums as anyone else who has chosen the same options that are designed for them to meet the coverage needs of them and their families.

                      That is ridiculous.

                    • Devildog  On April 27, 2013 at 2:18 PM

                      Substantial changes in the law have nothing to do with it-except that might possibility avoid a train wreck. Your explanation for a possible Congressional exemption is a tortured one beyond belief.

                      So, you haven’t heard about dropping insurance coverage to throw their employees into “the pool”.

                    • umoc193  On April 27, 2013 at 2:05 PM

                      Oh, if you missed the point I maintain that the lies I cited were mouthed before and after passage and most decidely were not true then nor are they now. Period.

                    • Devildog  On April 27, 2013 at 2:13 PM

                      Anonymous, was right about you. Because I make predictions about a law and you disagree, I’m a liar. Because I make predictions about the future of a law, you don’t agree and not all of them have occurred within a couple of years and the law hasn’t even been fully implemented, I am a liar. If I predict now that you will be 66 later this year, am I a liar.

                    • umoc193  On April 27, 2013 at 6:10 PM

                      I am not speaking of predictions. you may predict certain outcomes due to the law and though I might disagree neither of us is lying.

                      But I cited several actual lies about what was contained in the law that are proveably false and you keep saying well, they might become true if additional legislation is passed. No, the lies were told about what was contained in the law and were made prior to passage and subsequent to it.

                      You are simply wrong. (And I did not call you a liar)

                    • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 12:00 AM

                      No Reply link

                      Stimulus is a failure – 0% GDP growth rate, 11% urate if constant labor force participation rate

                      GM was not a success. In addition to the number of jobs GM has outsourced since the bailout, studies show that saving one Detroit job paying 60000 costs society 200000

                  • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 11:40 PM

                    One of Obama’s very first actions was to sign the Lily Ledbetter Act into law. He repealed DADT. He ended the war in Iraq. While you dislike the ACA, the fact remains that he was successful in getting Congress to pass it. He’s refused to let his administration defend the so-called DOMA. I’m sure Tourist, UMOC, Deke et al. can list others as well.

                    • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 12:02 AM

                      Leaving Iraq is the main reason why al Queda is coming back

                    • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 12:15 AM

                      There have been a lot of acts signed into law and the Lily Ledbetter Act is one of them

                    • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 12:40 AM

                      Was signing the Lily Ledbetter Act, which Obama pushed for, a success?

                      Where’s your proof that “Leaving Iraq is the main reason why al Queda is coming back”? For that matter, with the demise of Bin Laden (another Obama success), isn’t al Qaeda on the decline?

                    • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 12:55 AM

                      al Queda on the decline? I don’t know about that. I am pretty certain that about 4 dead people in Boston (not to mention another 280 injured) would agree that radical Islam hasn’t exactly been defeated as O has claimed

                      I have seen the movie Zero Dark Thirty and could have sworn that wasn’t O who pulled the trigger. In addition, if you saw the movie or had any level of common sense you would know that getting bin Laden was the culmination of 10 years of efforts by many agencies here and abroad and O had little to do with it – other than watching it happen. Funny, no video of him watching 4 Americans die in Benghazi – oh, yeah, that’s right, he was busy getting his sleep to prepare for his campaign appearance the next day.

                      Not to mention that it looks like Hilary may have been caught in a little bit of a lie about what she knew about the security detail

                      The act is trying to ‘fix’ a false statistic – how can it be effective?

      • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM

        And surely are the reason Bush’s approval rating is increasing. It appears Bush wasn’t so wrong after all.

        You are either with us or against us.

        As opposed to O’s declaration that we have defeted radical Islam. O’s policies have revived radical Islam.

        • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 12:43 AM

          The reason for an increase in Bush’s approval rating may be a combination of its having been so low at the time he left the Presidency, combined with amnesia (people forgetting just how awful he was — sort of like women who after a while forget just how painful childbirth is).

          • umoc193  On April 24, 2013 at 6:56 AM

            “The reason for an increase in Bush’s approval rating may be a combination of its having been so low at the time he left the Presidency, combined with amnesia (people forgetting just how awful he was — sort of like women who after a while forget just how painful childbirth is).”

            I recently received an email discussing whether childbirth for a woman or a man getting hit in his genitals is the worse pain. The answer is revealed by the number of women willing to undergo childbirth again.

  • Tourist  On April 23, 2013 at 10:28 PM

    http://blogs.post-gazette.com/opinion/rob-rogers-cartoons/37725-godless-terrorist

    Please consider that Rob Rogers cartoon, today’s, titled “Godless Terrorist,” and Anonymous’s comment above (April 20, 2013 at 8:20 PM): “Fuck the rest of the world . . . . The rest of the world answers to us.”

    I had thought the second comment at the top of this thread (April 20, 2013 at 5:09 PM) would stand as his ultimate example, and in a little over three hours he surpassed it. Fact of life: There are all kinds everywhere and this in the internet age. Most people think things like this are what make Americans so adorable. Really, don’t get me wrong. Americans like me cherish free speech for Americans like him. We just wish they could answer for it themselves sometimes.

    For what it’s worth, I see a lot of Anonymous in this, too:

    • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 10:36 PM

      Tourist, if you see a lot of Anonymous in the first gal in purple, you are one sick dude. Minx, maybe!

      • Tourist  On April 23, 2013 at 10:40 PM

        Devildog, Minx is a babe. Minx, I have to tell him this. Dog, a little while back you called me “inscrutable.” The last time someone did that, Minx said it was racist. She held off with you, and I know she noticed. I think she likes you, buddy.

        • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 10:54 PM

          I either knew or guessed that. I doubt her “like” because she follows da man around like a little puppy dog and, if there’s room in her heart for twe, you’re da man 2.

          Besides which, I think she’s already called me a racist and doesn’t feel the necessity of doing so again.

          • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 11:18 PM

            Citations?

            • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 11:30 PM

              One speeding ticket a few years ago and I seem to recall another one about 25 years ago.

              • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 12:36 AM

                Durn WordPress, didn’t place my comment where I intended it. My request for citation to evidence was for the statement, “Minx said it was racist. She held off with you, and I know she noticed.” Show me where I call use of the word “inscrutable” racist. I Googled it just now, and found nothing.

        • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 11:12 PM

          In the blogosphere, we’re all hotties 😉

    • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 10:47 PM

      I saw that cartoon. I like the first comment under that cartoon

      • Tourist  On April 23, 2013 at 10:54 PM

        Of course you do. It is, in full: “Lefties don’t understand and they never will.” It does not mean anything.

        • anonymous  On April 23, 2013 at 10:59 PM

          Oh no Toury, it means everything.

  • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 10:37 PM

    As Dave Barry would say, I’m not making this up.

    “N.H. state rep. thinks Boston Marathon bombing was done by the government”:
    http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130423/GJNEWS_01/130429720/-1/FOSNEWS

    “…In a comment posted on Facebook on April 19 at 10:24 a.m., Tremblay wrote that Monday’s attack occurred ‘Top Down, Bottom UP.’ ‘The Boston Marathon was a Black Ops “terrorist’ attack,” Tremblay wrote in a message to conservative commentator Glenn Beck. ‘One suspect killed, the other one will be too before they even have a chance to speak…'”

  • Tourist  On April 23, 2013 at 11:54 PM

    Cuban Missile Crisis, “Thirteen Days” (book): Khrushchev sends a concessionary message and before Kennedy can respond Khrushchev sends another one, contradicting the first. What to do? Brilliant! Ignore the second. Treat the first as operative.

    Minx, Dog, look for the good! Don’t blow it!

    • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 12:36 PM

      Tourist, haven’t read the book but have read enough to believe that NK, who started “it” achieved his objective with the “agreement”. See Turkey. Now that was brilliance!

    • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 12:51 PM

      On another topic. This new report (OECD) came out that the US. Ranks 17th and 25th in the world in science and math and implies we must plow money into those areas to remedy that dismal situation.

      So, we need to do that because, of course, the study must be valid and reliable and money will solve the problem.

      Well, here’s my take. The U.S. ranks well above Israel in those categories and to even be equal to that technological marvel of a country much less well above it means we are doing quite well. So, what to do with a study that ranks Israel so low. Should it be the impetus for immediate and drastic governmental action?

  • Tourist  On April 24, 2013 at 3:49 AM

    Anonymous,

    You at April 24, 2013 at 2:11, under your Pelosi clip:

    “I read so many ridiculous things that you guys write I just assumed . . . . You read something a 1000 times and you just start taking it for granted. I am sure I just read the 1st paragraph on Pelosi and then read Romney likes to fire people and, well” . . . and, well, you misunderstood. No problem. Those things happen.

    Is it in you to step back and consider how “failed policies” heard a thousand times – every policy, current policies, already failed in the past tense – might sound? Maybe “we” are also misunderstanding. “Lefties don’t understand and they never will” was cited today (not said) by you. How do I answer that when I don’t know what it means?

    One thing I “take for granted” (as you said) is that most Americans are relieved that we are out of Iraq. No? Yet today from you we get: “Leaving Iraq is the main reason why al Queda is coming back.” Is there nothing this president does that is not a disaster in your eyes? Is it in you see how someone might think it isn’t “policies” at all?

    I return gently to your “hope” for limited recovery and higher unemployment so that the president does not get credit for a recovery.

    I return gently to your personal fraud upon the unemployment and food-stamp programs, which is the president’s fault because you were able to find a way to do it.

    What do you want? Why are you here?

    • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 12:13 PM

      Just because ‘most’ Americans are happy we are out of Iraq doesn’t make it good policy. It would be easy to be a leader if you just did what was popular. This is what O does – gives out free stuff. There is no real analysis as to whether what he is doing is effective. Just do it and we’ll figure it out later – which is often what you say. We’ll ‘fix’ the ACA is one ridiculous example – it is unfixable. This is what lefties want because they really want a single payer. Does even UMOC at this point think the ACA will decrease the cost of insurance or medical care?

      This is why progressivism is a failure – the idea that govt must ‘fix’ something when it is inherently unable to.

      BTW, nobody is liking the ACA right now and O doesn’t plan to repeal it – why not? We are doing what people want. Right?

      Being a leader is about doing the hard things – being honest with people. Obama can’t even call it radical Islam. If you can’t call it what EVERYBODY knows it is, how can you stiop it?

      The politically correct world of liberalism is, in fact, one of the main reasons we are LOSING the war against radical Islam. This is why Bush is looking better – he was able to call it what it is. You can’t fix something until you acknowledge what it is.

      Keynesian fiscal spending does not work – you simple cannot claim the stimulus worked. It did not. 0% GDP Growth rate, 11% urate if labor force participation rate is constant. You know what policies I believe would be effective.

      The inherent difference between us is you think govt can make things better while believe it can’t.

      Don’t you feel the tide turning? No gun control. Immigration reform will likely not occur and definitely not if we cannot be certain the border is closed (esp. given Boston and what the Mounties just found in Canada). Obama looks bad on this sequester – people aren’t buying it is the GOP. He could have moved the money to make sure there would be no issues. No White House tours? Really? The airline issues? People know O could do something about it – they aren’t that stupid. They were stupid enough to buy style over substance (twice) but the actual implemetation of what O wants makes him look ridiculous and people are realizing this.

      What O says sounds good – the govt can fix everything. That’s a message that sounds great. But the govt can’t fix things and people are realizing that.

      The Dems are going to get crushed in 2014 – both Houses. A slaughter. O is a lame duck. It is over.

      Last note: The ACA may make it because it is law. But it will be a close battle as to why O will go down as one of of the worst if not the worst prez ever. The ACA had the lead but his failed policy towards radical Islam is gaining ground. Drones only go so far.

      • Tourist  On April 24, 2013 at 5:28 PM

        “Don’t you feel the tide turning?”

        I do. I feel it. I know it. Romney’s going to win.

        You should at least think about this.

        • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 6:01 PM

          I have – style counts. Pandering to special interests also helps.

        • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 6:05 PM

          Given how O is going down in flames and what this will mean for the future of progressivism (that there isn’t one), Romney losing is the best thing to happen to the GOP

      • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 5:41 PM

        By anonymous’ logic, when conservatives are in power, he believe ins a nanny-state where they cram down our throats what they think is good for us, whether we like it or not.

        • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 6:06 PM

          Trying to turn my statements based on logic doesn’t appear to be a strength of yours

          • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 10:21 PM

            Only because your “logic” is so contorted that it’s hard for anyone to explain, other than in the context of your hate-filled, jealous mind.

            • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 10:26 PM

              Speaking of jealous, does “snort” mean I have no reason to be jealous? Thanks!

    • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 12:16 PM

      What do I want? Why am I here? I am having fun blowing up the world of the intellectually inane. It is like a hobby. People said I needed to find one. They were right

      • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 5:30 PM

        anonymous is the poster child for what Albert Einstein said about “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

        • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 6:02 PM

          You had to post this twice?

          • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 10:17 PM

            It applies equally to both strands of discourse.

  • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM

    To UMOC On April 24, 2013 at 7:04 AM

    Defining failure is not the issue. We don’t agree on the definition of failure. You believe the stimulus worked. Urate would be 11% if labor force participation rate remained the same. It hasn’t because O has made it more attractive to not work – 2 years of unempt benefits, food stamps with no real work requirement and disability. The GEP growth rate was 0% in 2012Q4 and will likely be below 2% in 2013 – need 3% for real job growth.

    ACA will decrease ins. premiums? Or increase them by up to 32% (costs to ins. companies will increase 32% – doesn’t necessarily mean premiums will go up by 32%. There will no doubt be some significant increase)

    Defeating radical Islam? O can’t say the words ‘radical Islam’.

    Gun control? Success for O?

    Immigration reform? O not really involved. Unlikely to pass anything without certainties about securing the border.

    Gay marriage. OK. O has this one. It is not a major issue, esp. in mid-term elections

    O’s budget proposal is a joke. He knows it is a joke. There is zero chance at a grand bargain – this would actually be something that could be bi-partisan. Serious entitlement reform (and chained CPI is not that) for tax reform. But O doesn’t want this. He wants more taxes and more spending.

    Abortion? How’s Planned Parenthood looking these days? O was supposed to be the keynote speaker Thurs but now will speak privately Fri.

    Give me an example of something going O’s way other than winning 4% of the popular vote thanks to the media (remember he starts at 47%).

    • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 11:10 PM

      “How’s Planned Parenthood looking these days?” Excellent, thanks to the huge public backlash against inanities spewed by Akin, Mourdock, Santorum and their ilk, and the attempt (that they ultimately had to rescind) by the Susan G. Komen leader not to fund breast cancer testing at Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood’s president was even a primetime speaker at the Democratic National Convention last summer.

      • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 11:58 PM

        Is that why O passed up making the keynote speech?

        Planned Parenthood should be defunded. They look the other way when a doctor (as in, you know, ‘First, do know harm’), is committing infanticide

        PP lobbyist saying that whether a baby should be treated as a human being after being born alive after a botched abortion is up to the mother, her family and the doctor

        If the doctor testied and he won’t, I can imagine his testimony defending Planned Parenthood and third trimester abortions would look a little bit like this.

        • Devildog  On April 25, 2013 at 12:23 AM

          Thanks, Anonymous. I can’t hear that enough. I’ve been a lawyer and I am a Marine. I understand. A little while ago, I told UMOC he could never understand, and that goes for most people, especially on this blog.

          Good night! Semper Fi to all Marines out there. I look forward to reading da man’s nasty response in the morning.

  • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 6:41 PM

    With this said, I ain’t diminishing O’s victory. It is very important. It will mean 4 more years of a stagnant economy and unless O can start calling it what it is – more attacks by radical Islam.

  • Devildog  On April 27, 2013 at 1:40 PM

    Based on some recent UMOC posts, not necessarily to me or about me but not necessarily excluding those either:

    Tourist, it’s been nice.

    I sing what Don Meredith sang and say what was one of Mike Lange’s favorite sayings.

    • Tourist  On April 27, 2013 at 4:43 PM

      Devildog, I understand. Likewise. Listen in for a while, though, okay?

      • Devildog  On April 27, 2013 at 5:23 PM

        Right on Tourist.

  • Tourist  On April 27, 2013 at 6:38 PM

    UMOC, specifically to yours at April 27, 2013 at 6:10 PM (there are no more reply links): Who gives a shit? He’s gone. This forum has fallen apart, and you’re still going on about “lies were told.”

    You’ve been riding for a long time the line about Romneycare that “no one has answered my question” – no one has given reasons. People have. I have, on their behalf (they changed their minds and/or they think it’s for the states). Now Devildog has (package as a whole). You answer that there have been “no substantial reasons.” And I don’t give a shit about this either.

    You’ve become a one-man shout show, as different on substance from Anonymous as anyone could be, but not on style. I probably should have objected then to your “Choice” post addressed to “kiddies,” because that seems clearly how you see us.

    You remind me of a commenter who jumped in first on a Rob Rogers cartoon about the Pope, to declare that the “poor misguided fools” were going to be outraged. When a Catholic said he thought the cartoon was fair, the first commenter came back: “Oh, but I assure you, there will be plenty of outrage nonetheless.” Need the punchline?

    • Devildog  On April 27, 2013 at 7:12 PM

      Tourist, it was worth the wait.

    • umoc193  On April 27, 2013 at 8:34 PM

      Tourist

      I respect your views immensely but in this case I think you are off base.

      I’m not going to argue the point save for this, addressing folks as “kiddies” is a rhetorical device I use from time to time in many contexts and it in no way indicates I am talking down to my listeners/readers.

      • Devildog  On April 27, 2013 at 9:25 PM

        UMOC, I may be wrong but I don’t think Tourist was focused on the word “kiddies”, or even had that in mind, when he said ” that seems clearly the way you see us”. That is, I would call you the professor if I thought you saw us as being on the collegiate level but, instead, I’ll call you a second grade teacher.

  • Devildog  On April 27, 2013 at 9:26 PM

    Second rate, also

Please give me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: