Comment moderation is off so anyone wanting to comment won't have to wait for its release on Monday. My New Commenting Policy is on the sidebar and linked here, if anyone wants to read it. Also, kaveman has helped me synthesize it here.
Have a good weekend.
Hey Mike, the first link is broken.
ReplyDeleteOf course I'll have a good weekend since I'm going to the gun show.
ReplyDeleteYeah, first linky no worky.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't wait to share this one with you.
Pretty amazing, no?
PS: I now see why you have to moderate comments--good God!
ReplyDeleteGeez Daisy,
ReplyDeleteYou insult people, call them names, act authoritative, condescending, rude and pissy when you get a little sass back.
In other words a typical pro-ignorance, anti-freedom liberal.
No wonder you are friends with MikeB. Birds of a feather
Bob, You really make my decision to flock together with Daisy a tough one.
ReplyDeletePresumably Bob S must think you get up every morning and think 'what can I do to thwart the cause of freedom today?'
ReplyDeleterme
White Rabbit,
ReplyDeleteI simply observe the actions and read the words written by MikeB.
Those very words and actions indicate that he is trying to thwart the cause of freedom.
Notice that he doesn't talk about how to stop criminals from committing robberies just how to stop them from using firearms.
Notice how he doesn't talk about stopping a thug from raping a woman just making it harder and more expensive for her to own a firearm that could stop the rape.
Bob, do you barge into someone's house and start preaching to their friends and wrecking the joint? Because THAT IS RUDE.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's exactly what you did.
You do not force your way into people's homes and behave like a rude little brat, do you? Well, maybe you do--after all, you ARE a conservative and as Joe Wilson has recently shown us, the historic guardians of manners obviously have LOST all of theirs. (That's what happens when ILL-BRED YAHOOS take over an entire ideology. Stalinist-style bullying reigns supreme.)
For the record, and since nobody apparently taught you: One does not force oneself into someone's home and "give a little sass"--one is on one's best behavior as a guest and visitor. Unless of course you are trying to CAUSE TROUBLE. (In which case you will be treated like any other rude, stupid, name-calling ruffian.)
If you were never taught any better by your parents, that is YOUR PROBLEM as a congenitally rude person, NOT OURS. Got it?
I banish ALL rude asses from my house. You get the same treatment as any other rude drunk or door-to-door salesman or stinky-homeless druggie who doesn't know when to leave and has no sense of propriety or politeness.
(Damn, do the LIBERALS have to teach the conservatives about the necessity of tact, manners and decency? Obviously, Bizarro Universe beckons.)
You have your work cut out for you, Mike, but I would BAN someone with such limited intelligence regarding the impact of his own behavior. (Or is he just a garden variety troll-bully? If so, banning is still indicated.)
Daisy,
ReplyDeleteFirst your blog isn't your house. It is the equivalent of a street corner.
You are putting your thoughts, ideas and words out in public. So, you getting in a snit because I dared to comment on your blog is ludicrous.
From your own blog profile
outside agitator...writer of rants and raves,
Once again the hypocrisy of the left is exposed. It is okay for you to be an outside agitator, but a person responding to your rants isn't permitted.
start preaching to their friends and wrecking the joint?
I was discussing the topic YOU publicly wrote about. I was discussing the topic that YOU allowed comments on.
You, Person of female gender, started with the rudeness....calling me an asshole.
Do you treat guests in your place with rudeness and discourtesy all the time?
Incredible, then you bring your argument with me to MikeB's place...and MikeB allows it.
Hey, MikeB where is your commenting policy now?
Reasoned Discourse strikes again.
ReplyDelete"Hey, MikeB where is your commenting policy now?"
ReplyDeleteMikeB is showing his true colors again.
I'm still "flocking" with Daisy and White Rabbit and phuckpolitics.
ReplyDeleteFrom your commenting policy
ReplyDeletePersonal attacks will be rejected at my discretion.
And what do you call the diatribe that Daisy launched at me MikeB?
Bob, be fair, MikeB's commenting policy is 100% partisan, and always has been.
ReplyDeleteHe only hides behind it because he's obviously ashamed to admit how he wants to play the game.
Honestly I'm fine with it. If MikeB wants to be dishonest it's his 1st Amendment right.
It's also his right to call for our rights to be stripped.
Of course the constitution that calls for his rights to be protected, also protects our rights.
I welcome MikeB's hypocrisy, as it only helps our cause, and harms his and those who support him.
Oh Weer'd,
ReplyDeleteI recognize all that and more. I just wanted to make the hypocrisy plain and evident.
Not everyone has our extensive experience with how biased MikeB applies his commenting policy.
And what do you call the diatribe that Daisy launched at me MikeB?
ReplyDeleteAnybody who comes storming into my house can expect the same, as I expect you would do the same to anyone who came storming rudely into yours.
Bob: First your blog isn't your house. It is the equivalent of a street corner.
ReplyDelete1) To me and to most WOMEN bloggers, it is not. It is like our homes, where we enjoy fellowship and community. We do not enjoy rude little boys, interrupting polite conversation by sticking peas up their nose at dinnertime.
Some of us have already raised kids and don't want to put up with any more of them, thanks.
2) Just because you announce something in your fascist I'm-a-White-American-Texan-and-I-know-it-all fashion, does not mean it is necessarily true. (I realize, this has never occurred to you, so I will pause to let that sink in.)
3) I say my blog is like my house, period. You cannot change my perceptions with your fascist statement. And my perceptions cause me to see you as a unsocialized, rude little barn-raised BRAT. And I will delete ill-mannered BRATS from my blog, as I would from my house... especially those so predictable and unimaginative that they invariably called the teacher "bitch!" when they don't get their own way, and bring their juvenile boy-habits into their, um, "adulthood"...and attendant discourse.
Personal attacks are when you call someone "bitch" on their own blog, and then amazingly expects them to okay the rest of your comments.
Oh, wait, maybe that's just garden-variety idiocy.
Wow, OUT THERE!
ReplyDeleteSomebody has some pent up rage about people posting comments on a public blog.
Hey Daisy, if it's my perception that your blog is MY house, does that make me right?
heh
Somebody has some pent up rage about people posting comments on a public blog.
ReplyDelete1) Not just ANY people, only stupid, ill-mannered people.
2) Not just ANY public blog, MY public blog.
I don't care who else you pester. Why would I?
Hey Daisy, if it's my perception that your blog is MY house, does that make me right?
See reference to stupidity, above.
" So, you getting in a snit because I dared to comment on your blog is ludicrous."
ReplyDeleteYup, but as we know Daisy simply cannot allow her bigotry, intolerance and general ignorance to be countered in her comments section.
How could she peddle bullshit if she allowed us to counter it at her place?
Ever notice how these anti-gun women act? Daisy, Skye, Catherine. All get extremely rude, nasty, and belligerent when someone dares challenge their belief system. They can't handle it, and they're simply unable to control their emotions.
I suspect mental illness.
But MikeW, She can be rude in "her house" no matter how weak the analogy is.
ReplyDeleteAlso note that when I made a weak analogy, I was stupid. I guess I'd be rude to call her stupid. Of course.
Also what's the big deal with "Bitch" I thought it was a word of empowerment with self-claimed feminists...
http://bitchmagazine.org/
Daisy,
ReplyDeleteDo you leave your house open so that anyone and everyone can stop by and walk in?
Nope. A blog isn't a house. It is a street corner, it is a table at a coffee house. It is an open forum IF you put it out there.
It is no different from a news site with a comment section.
It isn't your house. You can perceive it to be your house or the White house or a house on Jupiter; doesn't mean it is.
Personal attacks are when you call someone "bitch" on their own blog, and then amazingly expects them to okay the rest of your comments.
Sorry Sweetheart, you failed reading comprehension 101.
I didn't call you a bitch.
Blogger Bob S. said...
Daisy,
Just because you seem to be trying to provoke a response, I'll oblige.
If I can't call you LADY, does BITCH work for you?
That is from your own blog
A subtle difference but a distinct one. I was asking how do you view yourself.
And since you view blogs as houses, do you normally come into other people's houses and harangue their visitors? Call them names.
You rant on and on about manners and display some of the most ill manners I've seen.
Mike W. said, "Ever notice how these anti-gun women act? Daisy, Skye, Catherine. All get extremely rude, nasty, and belligerent."
ReplyDeleteI hope Daisy doesn't mind if I pop in to say she's not anti-gun, she's anti-stupid.
Am I violating my own commenting policy with that? Has Daisy been in violation? Well, you know the part which says "at my discretion?" What that means, believe it or not, is that I delete comments from people who persistently and aggressively violate the policy. Can Daisy's couple of remarks be compared to the dozens from Bob? And that's before I started blocking them.
Phuckpolitics is another one. He drops a bomb once in a while, but that's not like the frequent purposeful viciousness that I've received from some of the others.
Bottom line, it's my blog, right?
So MikeB,
ReplyDeleteThought you didn't do personal attacks
I hope Daisy doesn't mind if I pop in to say she's not anti-gun, she's anti-stupid
I believe you just called me stupid since I was the subject of her rant.
Does that make you a hypocrite?
The reason for the change is the fact that a couple commenters seem to have lost the ability to argue and disagree respectfully. I've asked for it and not gotten it. So now it'll be enforced through comment moderation.
Does Daisy seem to be arguing and disagreeing respectfully AS YOU ASKED FOR? I wouldn't think so.
One interesting aspect is that the offending parties were never called to task by any of the other commenters.
Not only do you not take Daisy to task on YOUR OWN BLOG, you support her. Hmm...does that make you a hypocrite?
Do you gun guys support each other, right or wrong? Is that it? I don't have much respect for that.
You don't have much respect when it is the gun owners doing it, yet you clearly do it yourself....Does that make you a hypocrite?
But, when it comes to personal attacks and slander, all of which is off topic, I won't have it.
Is Daisy's attack on topic? Something you say you won't have, yet you not only don't condone it, you support it....does that make you a hypocrite?
Can Daisy's couple of remarks be compared to the dozens from Bob?
That isn't a valid comparison at all. My comments are about your statements,your issues and your topics. Daisy comes in and totally goes off topic.
Not only that but shows how hypocritical she is
What is pertinent about these three trolls is that they all have their own blogs.
She has her own blog where she posted on this subject...yet she subjects guests in your house to a rant.
She knows I have a blog, yet does not post on my blog, she rants here.
Bottom line, it's my blog, right?
Your right, but more importantly MikeB it is your principles, your values and your standards that are on display here.
When a person does not live up to the standard he or she says she does...how can the rest of the world trust that person to live up to their word about...oh, not wanting to take away our firearms?
You'll note she directly called me stupid.
ReplyDeleteDoes that count too?
Didn't think so.
Also care to point out what was "Stupid" about her latest anti-gun post.
I'll wait...
Thanks for noticing that I am not anti-gun at all, Mike.
ReplyDeleteI notice these guys have to make people they don't like into their political opposition. Its not their gun politics I dislike, its their way of approaching the subject.
I am one of the most pro-gun leftists you will find. (As the Black Panthers used to ask: How can their be revolution without guns?)
The hard-left loves guns as much as the hard-right, and I was raised in the hard-left. Since you are all so proud that you have never read my blog, you really don't know what my views are, and you are falsely ascribing views to me that I do not have. And that is pretty rude and disrespectful also. (Of course, this is how you conduct discourse since you know of no other approach, which is the stupid part.)
BTW, other than my disgust at a candidate giving away an assault rifle, can you find any other negative remark I have ever made about guns on my blog?
ReplyDeleteI'll save you the effort: No.
So why am I being labeled "anti gun"?
Reading comprehension, is the only thing I can figure. That is why I said "stupid"--maybe I should have said simply "unjust and unfair"...
Daisy,
ReplyDeleteNice how you continue your rant at other people's "homes".
Do you always rant at their guests when you are at other people's houses?
I see you are employing the typical response of ignoring the issues.
You put up a blog post on a public site using a public service and then complain that someone made comments you don't like.
You have the control of your blog to make it private, to control who can and can not comment on it, HECK even to the point of who can and can not access it.
You didn't do any of this things but want to consider your blog a private space... I'm amazed at the chutzpah display.
You rant about people being rude on other people's blog, but you exhibit extreme rudeness and hostility on someone else's blog....I'm amazed at the hypocrisy you display.
Do you always rant at their guests when you are at other people's houses?
ReplyDeleteMike stated (on my blog) that he didn't mind. If he did, I certainly wouldn't continue.
Do you see the difference there?
I see you are employing the typical response of ignoring the issues.
Um, I am actually trying to bring the subject back to GUNS--wasn't that originally the topic? And as I said, I am NOT anti-gun.
(You don't want to think about the fact that you have been attacking someone who may not actually disagree with you, do you?)
YOU are "ignoring the issues" here, not me. I tried to refocus the subject.
You put up a blog post on a public site using a public service and then complain that someone made comments you don't like.
Yep, I sure did. Good God, suck it up like a MAN and stop whining like a spoiled brat.
OMG! Life doesn't always bend to our individual will! ... I guess another lesson your parents didn't teach you.
You have the control of your blog to make it private, to control who can and can not comment on it, HECK even to the point of who can and can not access it.
Yup, I can do what the hell I want. Deal with it. Stop whining that I do not live my life to please you.
You didn't do any of this things but want to consider your blog a private space... I'm amazed at the chutzpah display.
Really? I amaze you? You must live a pretty sheltered life. You need to get out more.
I'm a bit surprised that you seem to prefer ranting at me instead of talking about guns! (Am I
important or what?)
Again, stop whining like a wittle boy that didn't get his own way. It's really unbecoming.
You rant about people being rude on other people's blog, but you exhibit extreme rudeness and hostility on someone else's blog....I'm amazed at the hypocrisy you display.
I could give a rats ass... but yes, I will do whatever I please.
I think I now understand why Mike finds gun-freaks like you so dangerous... the single-mindedness, the grudges, the pettiness, the free-floating resentments and downright meanness: in short, exactly the kind of person who would use an assault weapon (which you defend) to blow another dude's brains out just because he was dissed.
Me, I am the woman who would carry a purty red pistol for protection...and I don't think Mike would begrudge me that.
Again, see the difference?
OK Daisy, I'll bite. You say here:
ReplyDelete"I am one of the most pro-gun leftists you will find. (As the Black Panthers used to ask: How can their be revolution without guns?)"
Then you say: "BTW, other than my disgust at a candidate giving away an assault rifle, can you find any other negative remark I have ever made about guns on my blog?"
Care to explain to me how you can favor armed revolution, but be disgusted by the lawful transfer of a firearm?
BTW you also complain that BobS mischaracterized you because he didn't read your blog, but you say:
"in short, exactly the kind of person who would use an assault weapon (which you defend) to blow another dude's brains out just because he was dissed."
Obviously you've never read his blog, so I think you can let that dog die.
I look forward to your explanation.
Care to explain to me how you can favor armed revolution, but be disgusted by the lawful transfer of a firearm?
ReplyDeleteReading comprehension = its a good thing.
When did I say I "favored" it? I said I was raised in the hard-left and therefore (as a result) I am generally more pro-gun than most leftists.
I am more comfortable with guns that mere "liberals"--whom you keep confusing me with.
Reply: I am disgusted by assault rifles, which I think are exceedingly violent and damaging. (As I said, I have shot one about a half-dozen or more times.) In a place like SC, that ships guns all over the world, I think it is irresponsible for a politician to endorse their use.
And for that rather TEPID view, you guys trolled and bullied me for three days.
Obviously you've never read his blog, so I think you can let that dog die.
And once again, I will say and do whatever I please. Deal with it. (At least you don't whine incessantly, like Bob.)
I'm curious, how can a thing be "exceedingly violent and damaging"
ReplyDeleteWhen you shot them did you do violence and damage?
Umm, well, yeah, I destroyed a bunch of tin cans.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure flesh and bone would be even less resilient; I don't think they were created to shoot at only tin cans. Do you?
What were they created to do? Stop someone in their tracks or wreak ungodly havoc?
If the first result is achieved, I see no reason for the second.
"What were they created to do? Stop someone in their tracks or wreak ungodly havoc?"
ReplyDeleteWell Bob has a great post up on how meaningless a question that is:
http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=670
You'll see in the comments I don't 100% agree with him.
I'll say the Original AK-47 Assault rifle was made as an inexpensive infantry rifle.
The rifle you likely shot, as well as the one in the article we're talking about is a civilian reproduction of the Kalashnikov design, and is made for personal defense, hunting, sport shooting, and collecting.
I appreciate your civil discussion of this matter.
So I don't confuse your position, what firearms are you opposed to, and for what reason?
And what are suitable uses for a firearm?
The rifle you likely shot, as well as the one in the article we're talking about is a civilian reproduction of the Kalashnikov design, and is made for personal defense, hunting, sport shooting, and collecting.
ReplyDeleteAs I said on my blog, I shot an M-16.
And with that, I'd like to bow out of this discussion. Thank you for being polite and civil.
You'll excuse me Daisy if I complain.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be mixing up your gun laws and definitions.
An M-16 (if your nomenclature is correct) is a select fire Assault Rifle, which has been one of the most heavily restricted class of firearms in this country since the 1930s, and was banned from private sale (except for grandfathered peices) in the 80s.
This in no way has any bearing on the firearm posted on your blog which is a semi-auto-only rifle that has the dubious distinction of being referred to federally as an "Assault Weapon" between 1994 and 2004, and in a handful of states that still have the law on the books. (and it is only an "Assault weapon" because of the style of stock it possesses, and NOTHING to do with its internal workings or the cartridge it fires, or how it functions)
I hope you'll reconsider and help alleviate this confusion, and also supply me an answer to the question asked: "what are suitable uses for a firearm?"
Your above statements are quite close (weather intentional or otherwise) to the statements of Violence Policy Center chairman Josh Sugarmann, who in campaigning for the federal Assault Weapons ban said: ""Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
He intentionally confused people and mislead them to belive that the guns known as "Assault Weapons" were in fact full-auto weapons like the M-16 you fired, but also that they had no "practical use" of which I can point to many.
Again thank you for your show of respect and cooperation, and I'll politely request you to reconsider your decision to leave the discussion.
"I am one of the most pro-gun leftists you will find. (As the Black Panthers used to ask: How can their be revolution without guns?)"- Daisy redhead
ReplyDeleteWOW!
How does that make ya feel, MikeB?
Would she perhaps be part of your "famous 10%" or do you think individuals talking about armed revolution is part of the 90% you approve of?
Just wondering.
Kaveman, if I gave the impression I am in favor of armed revolution, let me clarify that I am not. (I once was, back in the Pleistocene Era that I referred to.)
ReplyDeleteI did mean to give the impression that for many years I associated with pro-gun leftists who also inculcated in me a fear of allowing the government to control and/or confiscate guns.
I am basically a peacenik, but very undecided about how much "gun control" (for lack of better term) any country should tolerate. That's why I read and appreciate Mike's blog so much. :)
Will you answer my question Daisy?
ReplyDeleteAnd also are you aware you are comparing two vastly different firearms (in both function and regulation) to each other?
I'm calling Daisy and her commenters out.
ReplyDeleteLink here: http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/563542.html
Note that my Pro-Gun readers will NOT be allowed to comment, this is a place for you to discuss your feelings on gun control with me.
http://www.djmal.net/thaspot/members/viagrakaufend
ReplyDelete[b]VIAGRA bestellen BESTELLEN PREISVERGLECH VIAGRA[/b]
http://www.serataanime.it/forum2/member.php?u=336
[b]VIAGRA ohne rezept VIAGRA[/b]
VIAGRA BESTELLEN eur 0.85 Pro Pille >> Klicken Sie Hier << BESTELLEN BILLIG VIAGRA CIALIS FREE VIAGRA BILLIG VIAGRA BESTELLEN
http://www.sembrasil.com.br/assets/snippets/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145
[b]PFIZER VIAGRA BILLIG VIAGRA REZEPTFREI BESTELLEN[/b]
[url=http://www.einvestorhelp.com/member.php?u=37776]VIAGRA preis[/url] - VIAGRA alternativ
[b]VIAGRA Deutschland VIAGRA PREISVERGLECH BESTELLEN[/b]
[b]VIAGRA ohne rezept VIAGRA PREISVERGLECH BESTELLEN[/b]
[url=http://www.postyouradforfree.com/showthread.php?p=313013]FREE VIAGRA[/url] - VIAGRA potenzhilfe
[b]VIAGRA im internet kaufen VIAGRA BESTELLEN PREISVERGLECH[/b]
[b]VIAGRA rezeptfrei VIAGRA REZEPTFREI BILLIG[/b]
[b]VIAGRA® kaufen
VIAGRA Deutschland
VIAGRA online kaufen
VIAGRA on line
VIAGRA alternativ
VIAGRA rezeptfrei
VIAGRA Kaufen
VIAGRA Apotheke[/b]