FYI
Tweet
People shouldn’t bring guns to presidential rallies. I don’t care if they’re Obama supporters, though I’m doubtful, but people shouldn’t be bringing guns to presidential rallies.
This should be pretty obvious, and I don’t know what the secret service is doing letting this get out of hand.
130 Responses to “FYI”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
As I’ve said before, it’s a security risk and a de facto provocation to the other side.
Oh sure, NOW it’s troubling to Hot Air.
I doubt the Secret Service is letting it get out of hand. They don’t fuck around, and I’m sure a lot of these people are going to wind up in jail (as they should).
Oliver, you’re being silly. As everybody knows, having armed civilians at the rally is the best way to make sure nobody gets shot. That’s why the Wild West was such a safe time to be alive.
Ok, check this out. Call me crazy, but I think the guy with the AR15 on his shoulder, was Secret Service.
Think about it, if there is a black man in the middle of phoenix with a semi auto on his back, there’d be 50 cops on him within seconds. The cops didn’t mess with this guy at all.
I have lived in Arizona for 13 years, and I’ve seen plenty of guns on hips and shoulders, but never ever seen someone slinging that kind of hardware around.
Plus the guy looked like a cop to me, well dressed, in shape. And he didn’t say shit to the press, usually the gun nuts will talk and talk and talk and tell you everything about themselves, and this guy barely spoke.
Remember that Obama has the biggest security detail in history, so knowing that they are going to Phoenix where there will be people openly showing firearms, the secret service can place on of their guys right smack dab in the middle of the crowd, just in case anyone tries something.
There are reports that the man with the semi-automatic Carbon-15 rifle (NOT “assault rifle” — that is a very specific term, and his weapon does not fit the definition of an “assault weapon”) informed the police of his intent the night before the event. Further, it was apparently NOT loaded. He did have a loaded magazine for it with him, but the weapon was NOT loaded while he carried it.
What he did was entirely within the letter of the law.
What he did was also entirely within the description of “asshat.” The Secret Service has enough to worry about without idiots like this bozo complicating their jobs.
For god’s sake, let’s spare the nation “President Biden.”
He made his little point. And he gave dipshits like Sanchez yet another excuse to engage in dipshittery.
Also, why all this fear-mongering about a black man with a scary-looking gun? Not a single law was broken. He was acting entirely within his rights, doing absolutely nothing wrong.
I smell racism.
J.
TPM made an excellent point- these are just garden variety gun nuts, who like every other gun nut simply enjoy waving a gun around because it makes them feel tougher than they actually are. The people to worry about aren’t the losers thinking “I’m packing” is a legitimate talking point; it’s the nutcases in a tree or with a rifle on the roof across the street who aren’t just trying to get their picture taken.
Legal in some cases, but certainly not a good idea.
U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.
Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, “Of course not.” From CNN.
Oh sure, NOW it’s troubling to Hot Air.
Actually, if you followed along, you would have seen Allahpundit saying something about the guy in New Hampshire as well. Hence his reason for writing, “As I’ve said before….” Pay attention.
I’m sure a lot of these people are going to wind up in jail (as they should).
So you advocate sending people to jail for not breaking the law and exercising their constitutional rights. Wonderful. Happy to know you’re such a happy little fascist.
TPM made an excellent point- these are just garden variety gun nuts, who like every other gun nut simply enjoy waving a gun around because it makes them feel tougher than they actually are.
TPM is incapable of making excellent points and the “people carrying their guns around to act tough” smear is really really old.
This is foolishness. People are supposed to just throw their rights in the closet because some people wet their pants at the sight of a gun and because it may be “provocative”? I didn’t see anybody concerned about provocation after dealing with 8 years of anti-war protest where people routinely behaved “provocatively” with their Bush = Hitler signs, swastikas and other Nazi signs, “Bush is a war criminal” signs, “Bush is a terrorist” signs and a host of other nonsense, a LOT of which you can see here:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612
and here too:
http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20090816
Of course, now the world is coming to an end because a few gun owners merely do what they’re legally allowed to do and somebody paints a picture of Obama to look like the Joker.
Yeah, it was so unfair not to worry about how threatening “Bush = Hitler” signs can be! After all, if you get hit on the head with one of those it might leave a mild welt! And thank God the Bush SS had the presence of mind to remove anybody with a possibly contrary T-shirt message from any Bush town hall appearances! After all, we have a Constitutional right to bear arms, but there’s no Constitutional clause about T-shirts! hahaha! Suck on that libs!
Turning the sane back on, I don’t see why so few people seem to have grokked the real purpose behind all the gun-waving. It’s not to pose a serious threat to Obama (it doesn’t, since these guys have generally been in outside protest areas without direct line of sight access to POTUS). It’s to intimidate any activists in favor of health care. Wingnuts believe they have all the guns, so a nice quick and easy way to scare any pro-reform folks from exercising their First Amendment right to advocate for their position. If they can get the none-too-subtle message out that if you plan to show up with a sign favoring the public option at a town hall, you’re gonna have a half dozen wingnuts with guns getting all up in your face, we’re gonna see fewer people coming out on the reform side. And then the wingnuts get to win the messaging war, because we will see more video of anti-reform teabaggers all over outside of townhalls with no pro-reformers visible, and the “drive by” media will take away the message “Gee, I guess no one in the general public is in favor of Obama’s reforms!” QED.
8 years of anti-war protest where people routinely behaved “provocatively” with their Bush = Hitler signs, swastikas and other Nazi signs, “Bush is a war criminal” signs, “Bush is a terrorist” signs and a host of other nonsense, a LOT of which you can see here
What is the danger to the president from a sign or a slogan? I know there must be one, because you used this example as a comparative danger.
Sure, it’s “legal” to carry, just as long as everyone understands that if one of these bozos brandishes that weapon in the presence of the president, he has less than a second to live.
After that, if he gets arrested, I don’t much care.
But “legal” aside, what is the LEGITIMATE purpose of bringing a firearm to a presidential appearance? To prove once and for all that you are a moron?
[close tag}
Soon, very soon the Secret Service is going to open fire on one of these fanatics, local and state gun carrying laws or no local and state gun carrying laws. The Secret Service’s legally obligated authority to protect the lives of our president and other appointed and elected officials, regardless of what political party they are affiliated with, is being challenged in a way that will result in the Secret Service having to send a message as to what it will and will not tolerate. Folks who insist on bringing guns to presidential rallies and events are selling woof tickets and the Secret Service does not buy woof tickets.
Yep, mean signs are totally the same thing as walking around with a rifle on your shoulder. I’m sure he was just trying to give the message that he loves playing XBox games. Marshall said it best, definitely:
I can’t imagine that sounds unfamiliar to a bunch of the more sane commenters here.
Soon, very soon the Secret Service is going to open fire on one of these fanatics, local and state gun carrying laws or no local and state gun carrying laws. The Secret Service’s legally obligated authority to protect the lives of our president and other appointed and elected officials, regardless of what political party they are affiliated with, is being challenged in a way that will result in the Secret Service having to send a message as to what it will and will not tolerate. Folks who insist on bringing guns to presidential rallies and events are selling woof tickets and the Secret Service does not buy woof tickets.
Good god. Do you really have that much contempt for the Secret Service?
Watch the video of Reagan being shot. Hinckley was the only one who fired. The most active Secret Service agent was Timothy McCarthy, who pivoted into the line of fire, making of himself as large a target as possible, and took a bullet in the gut for it. Other agents whipped out their guns (including one memorable agent with sunglasses and what appeared to be an Uzi), but NOT ONE OF THEM FIRED.
They are intensely trained in how to shoot, but far more importantly WHEN to shoot — and when NOT to shoot. Hinckley was tackled. The guy who threw his shoes at Bush was tackled. The idiot from Code Pink who assaulted Condoleezza Rice with red-painted hands in a Congressional hearing room was hauled off.
I can not recall a single time the Secret Service shot (or even shot at) a would-be presidential assailant. They are phenomenally disciplined. To say that a Secret Service agent would just shoot someone with a gun because they might point it in the general direction of the president is beyond stupid.
What they WOULD do is keep a very, very close eye on said gun-carrier and intervene at the first sign of trouble — by tackling the gunner and removing the president from danger. They would NOT shoot the gunman (especially when he’s in a crowd) except as the absolutely last resort.
And you’re a moron for suggesting that they would.
J.
More FYI: the last time I can find that a Secret Service agent fired in defense of the president was Agent Floyd Boring on November 1, 1950, when two Puerto Rican separatists tried to assassinate President Truman. Boring shot back, helping to wound one would-be assassin. The other was killed by a mortally wounded White House Police Officer Private Leslie L. Coffelt.
The Secret Service also did not fire during the Kennedy assassination, nor during the two attempts on President Ford.
J.
So you advocate sending people to jail for not breaking the law and exercising their constitutional rights.
{cough}Gates{cough}.
See how easy it is to do a little research before you post, Mr. Tea? Very impressive, I must say.
Now given the examples you found, what could one guess are the Secret Service’s rules for dealing with assailants?
They did not fire at Moore, Hinkley, Fromme. They did fire at Puerto Rican separatists. Any guesses, Mr. Tea?
Yeah, Quaker — if they can get close enough safely, take ‘em alive. If the shooters are actively shooting, take ‘em down.
Hinckley, Fromme, Moore — all were swarmed down within a second or two of the first shot fired. The Puerto Ricans started out by shooting guards — and the guards shot back.
The three solos you cited were all within crowds when they opened up. The two Puerto Ricans were by themselves.
Oh, and as far as Gates goes… I thought Bill might be upset about having a hurricane named after him, but who knew he’d go that far?
J.
“Squeaky” Fromm just finished doing 34 years in prison for bringing an unloaded gun to a presidential appearance.
There must be a lesson in that somewhere.
Quaker, you aren’t suggesting that the Secret Service racially profiles would-be assassins IN THE SPLIT SECONDS OF THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT, are you? “GUN!!!! Hang on, shooter is white — DO NOT SHOOT! Take ‘em down alive!”
Sigh…
J.
My mistake. Apparently her weapon was loaded, but no round in the chamber.
Remember when Team Bush, Jr. had two people arrested and LOCKED UP for wearing Kerry shirts? That was awesome.
you aren’t suggesting that the Secret Service racially profiles would-be assassins IN THE SPLIT SECONDS OF THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT, are you?
You’re right. I’m not.
Now take a deep breath and try again.
Yeah, it was so unfair not to worry about how threatening “Bush = Hitler” signs can be! After all, if you get hit on the head with one of those it might leave a mild welt!
My comments had to do with “provocation” which people seem to be concerned about, not the damage such signs can do if hit with one. So your lame joking aside, you either completely missed the point or you’re obfuscating on purpose.
It’s to intimidate any activists in favor of health care. Wingnuts believe they have all the guns, so a nice quick and easy way to scare any pro-reform folks from exercising their First Amendment right to advocate for their position. If they can get the none-too-subtle message out that if you plan to show up with a sign favoring the public option at a town hall, you’re gonna have a half dozen wingnuts with guns getting all up in your face,
And exactly what evidence do you have to support this?
Answer: Zero.
If people feel intimidated that is their own problem and their own issue. But what you’re doing is typical amongst the left when it comes to the stereotype of gun owners. You’re making them out to be these crazies that are just a spark away from pointing their weapons (a crime) or getting ready to just start shooting.
Do you have any real, true examples of intimidation or examples of somebody carrying a gun “getting all up in the face” of somebody who supports reform (of course, the only person I heard advocating getting in somebody’s face was President Obama). If so, let’s see it.
What is the danger to the president from a sign or a slogan? I know there must be one, because you used this example as a comparative danger.
No I did not use it as a comparative danger. I used that example to show the levels of “provocation” Bush haters engaged in over the last eight years and how it was far worse than anything we’ve seen at these town halls.
Do you people really have that much lack of faith in the Secret Service? I mean seriously. The Secret Service themselves have said the people carrying present no threat to the President. With regard to those carrying, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that they are nowhere near where the President can be harmed, otherwise, they wouldn’t have their guns.
And Jay Tea, I’m sorry. Telling people to check their rights under the law and the constitution because dipshit left wingers may engage in more dipshittery than they do already is absurd. If it wasn’t this, they’d be squawking about the scattered swastika signs you’re seeing at these protests or going apeturd over Obama being called a “socialist.” Of course, as I said earlier, they act as though this is something that is so horrible when Bush far more of that type of crap and it never seemed to concern them.
Sorry, Mr. Tea. My error. I was reading updates from the bottom of the thread and replied before reading this one:
Yeah, Quaker — if they can get close enough safely, take ‘em alive. If the shooters are actively shooting, take ‘em down.
Quite right, I think. So kindly explain why you think Mr. Cruiser is “a moron” for thinking gunfire might occur.
Because, Quaker, said weapon was apparently never handled in a threatening manner. The gentleman in question carried it slung over his shoulder. Cruiser is a “moron” for implying (and, by inference, believing) that the Secret Service is a bunch of trigger-happy thugs that would shoot a guy in the middle of a crowd for simply carrying a gun.
Had the guy made a move to take the gun off his shoulder and aim it at the podium, in all likelihood he would have been swarmed to the ground in seconds — and Obama smothered by agents who would manhandle him to safety. Only a “moron” would think that they would simply start shooting into the crowd.
Not that they would miss, but it’s almost guaranteed that the shot would have injured others as well. And they don’t do that.
J.
Boy, elections sure do have consequences.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/armed_protestor_we_will_forcefully_resist.php
And you’re a moron for suggesting that they would.
I’m standing by my moronic remarks. The Secret Service, sooner or later, is going to shoot one of these fanatics. You and your cut buddies can keep squawking and flapping your lips about Second Amendment rights and analogies with past events all you want.
The level of theatricality is being quickly ramped up and in such times past events are false guides to an always unpredictable future. The Secret Service is going to shoot one of these fools precisely because these gun toters are completely lost in the roles they have cast themselves in. At some point, their playacting will tragically intersect with the Secret Service’s predetermined kill point.
I trust my moronic instincts far more than your decayed rationality.
Because, Quaker, said weapon was apparently never handled in a threatening manner. The gentleman in question carried it slung over his shoulder. Cruiser is a “moron” for implying (and, by inference, believing) that the Secret Service is a bunch of trigger-happy thugs that would shoot a guy in the middle of a crowd for simply carrying a gun.
I don’t think Mr. Cruiser ever suggested that a gun was improperly handled at this rally, Mr. Tea. Nor do I see where he attributed trigger-happiness to the Secret Service.
Mr. Cruiser made a prediction about the future, Mr. Tea. He predicts that the arc of events will lead to a day when a gun owner becomes careless or exhibits poor judgment and the Secret Service determines this behavior crosses the line of acceptable behavior.
The “moronic” part of his prediction is the part you made up.
So I guess no one wants to tackle the point of bringing a gun to a presidential rally. Rights aside, what purpose does this serve?Liberal plants to make conservatives look like insecure wackos? I wish people would stop being coy about this issue. Just my opinion, but I think there is an unfounded fear that all weapons will be banned, so these displays are a “FU” to congress and the president. Its immature and childish which makes me wonder: why wouldn’t they use the weapon?
Let’s put it this way, Mr. Tea. A Secret Service agent perceives a threat to the life of the President. I believe the agent’s list of priorities might look something like this:
1) Protect the life of the President
2) Protect the lives of bystanders
3) Protect the agent’s own life
4) Protect the life of the assailant
It’s far from moronic to imagine that an assailant’s life might well be in jeopardy if a Secret Service agent believes there is a threat to the President’s safety.
But if name-calling is what thrills you today, by all means carry on.
The gentleman in question carried it slung over his shoulder.
Or he could have, for instance, left it in the car, since there was no chance he’d be doing any shooting.
Cruiser, you’re working from several biases and flawed assumptions here.
First, you’re adding in the element of “increased provocation” by the gun-bearers. That wasn’t in your original “moronic” statement.
Second, licensed gun-owners — especially those who decide to make a public statement by carrying their guns openly — are exceptionally responsible about their guns. They live by the credo that “you don’t aim a gun at anything you are unwilling to destroy.” They aren’t about to walk around a presidential (or other public, political) event with their guns, then — because they’re unhappy at something — suddenly start pointing their guns at someone.
The real concern here is some nut who will realize that these gun-carriers provide a great distraction for a real assassin, diverting official eyes from things like snipers and grenade-tossers and bombers and the like, and try to take advantage of that. For that reason, I think the gun-bringers ought to knock it off.
Plus, it gives ignorant, hysterical ninnies like you yet another excuse to indulge your hysteria.
And for the record, Cruiser: I don’t own a gun. Never have. And while there is no legal impediment to my obtaining one, I have no real interest in owning one, either.
J.
So I guess no one wants to tackle the point of bringing a gun to a presidential rally.
Well, douchebaggery for statrers. Hopefully nothing more than that.
Plus, it gives ignorant, hysterical ninnies like you yet another excuse to indulge your hysteria.
OK, when I said you should carry on with the name-calling? I didn’t really mean that.
I think you stated Mr. Cruiser’s case rather well when you wrote this:
The Secret Service, of course, will not have advance knowledge as to who is an honest citizen, who is a reckless partisan, and who is an actual assassin. I think we all agree that they will deal with perceived threats aggressively.
why wouldn’t they use the weapon?
Why would they? A person concerned about the President’s agenda regarding the second amendment is going to shoot somebody and go to prison, thereby making sure they will lose their guns and not get be able to them back outside breaking the law?
Yeah, that makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.
Or he could have, for instance, left it in the car, since there was no chance he’d be doing any shooting.
Are you sure about that? What if neo-Hitler and Communist Kenyan death panelist Obama imposed his will on people “through the strength of the majority with a vote”? What then? This good and wholesome gun toter would have no choice but to refresh the ol’ Tree o’ Liberty.
A person concerned about the President’s agenda regarding the second amendment is going to shoot somebody and go to prison, thereby making sure they will lose their guns and not get be able to them back outside breaking the law? Yeah, that makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.
Excellent point! Like what happened to your ideological compadre Jim David Adkisson.
Thank goodness no gun-toting righ-wingers have totally fucked up martyrdom complexes or paranoid delusions. Dodged a bullet there, we did!
Plus, it gives ignorant, hysterical ninnies like you yet another excuse to indulge your hysteria.
What exactly, pray tell, is my hysteria? Your responses to my posts on this issue strongly indicates to me that you are the one who is hysterical.
“Horns do not grow before the head.”
The Dave Niewert Decade:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=25587
I wonder if it is legal to show up at such an event carrying a baseball bat and wearing a sword. If not, why not?
The guy w/ the rifle was outside the convention center in some of the crowd. He wasn’t inside where the President was. He wouldn’t have been able to bring his weapon into the convention center.
The the two states I’ve lived for the past 6 years have been NH and AZ. After all this time it is simply amazing to me how many people are wetting-themselves scared of people getting to carry a firearm openly.
Honestly, I would pay good money to watch people who associate book learnin’ with the enemy try and fail to produce a modern-day Federalist Papers. If they do manage something it will be the first book ever written in all caps.
Now that is the funniest, most insightful comment I have read all week about these idiots.
Why, SFC B, do folks ‘wet themselves’?
Because we remember:
JFK,
RFK,
MLK,
Milk,
Moscone,
and so on.
We hate that the brightest stars have been shot dead.
And yes, bringing a gun to a Presidential event is a message about killing the President. Guns are meant to kill.
And yes, folks who live in cities a less sanguine about folks hanging around with guns – we see enough crazy folks ranting at the trees to know that adding more guns means more crazy folks with guns.
After all this time it is simply amazing to me how many people are wetting-themselves scared of people getting to carry a firearm openly.
I’m confident that this has more to do with people openly packing overkill heat outside of a Presidential town hall meeting than merely a dude with a gun.
It’s about a wingnut (and they are not few and far between) with an overkill gun outside of a Presidential town hall meeting actually saying, “We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote.”
It’s about a wingnut with a gun outside of a Presidential town hall meeting proudly displaying one of Timothy McVeigh’s favorite sayings about bloody revolution and martyrdom.
Or are you cool with all that?
He wouldn’t have been able to bring his weapon into the convention center.
GUN CONTROL!
Folks are allowed to openly carry guns where I live but I’ve never seen anyone do it because he or she would be ostracized in a heartbeat. Folks love their guns here but not enough to bring them to township and school board meetings. Folks lover their religion too but nobody who promotes creationism is going to be elected to the local school board.
There is a time and place for everything. Carrying guns, loaded or unloaded, to presidential rallies is not the time and place. To do it, is a form of signifying. In the sense of “I’m a bad mofo and nobody better mess with me.” Not cool, not cool.
Yeah, that makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.
Right wing nutjobs with guns don’t usually deal in the sense business.
I knew a guy who owned lots of guns, a big pickup truck and a couple pit bulls. He was also short, fat and repellent to every woman he encountered. Reminds me of Jay.
Anyways, wingnuts are terrified of tee shirts and signs anywhere near their president. We all remember:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/
But they encourage guns near our president. Talk about intellectual cowardice.
No, Jay, that is categorically not what I am doing. What I am doing is suggesting that this is a not too subtle plan to intimidate pro-reform folks from making their voices heard by using the fear that the crazies might be just getting ready to start shooting. No actual shooting need occur for this lovely effect to proceed.
Let me ask you the question, Jay… how comfortable would you feel going in to ask tough questions of Obama at a town hall if, let us say, there were rows of beefy mirror-shaded Black Panthers and/or scowling FOI members arrayed outside? Would the presence of such people regardless of whether they ever actually physically laid a hand on anyone be likely to encourage or discourage Obama-haters to show up and get rowdy?
Also FYI, it seems at least a few TPM readers with experience with authentic western gibberish agree with my thesis: (emphasis mine)
Of course, as I said earlier, they act as though this is something that is so horrible when Bush far more of that type of crap and it never seemed to concern them.
In fact Obama is receiving four times the number of death threats than Bush ever did, and the Secret Service is at half the staff they need to protect him adequately. Here’s the article from two weeks ago on that.
And drawing parallels between signage and weapons is ridiculous beyond belief. You want to carry a poster, knock yourself out. You want to carry Obama=Hitler signs, fine, you’re a shitprick, but feel free to advertise. You want to carry a sign that says “I’m a gun owner, Mr President, and you should be very afraid of me” – no, that’s a threat, but one can argue that it’s still only a sign. (I think someone willing to make that statement in public should be pulled aside and questioned, but that’s a point for debate.) But carrying weapons openly at a President’s event should be fine and dandy? Unacceptable.
I don’t care that AZ lets you take guns into bars and pretty much everywhere; it is completely irresponsible to bring weapons to a President’s meeting, no matter whether you can or not. Jay Tea is right – every one of these carriers takes manpower to observe and thins out the LE on the ground. They’re part of the problem, nothing less. Where is the judgment these supposedly responsible gun owners are supposed to have so much of when it comes to their weapons?
every one of these carriers takes manpower to observe and thins out the LE on the ground.
and serves to ratchet up the stress and anxiety level of Secret Service agents. Again, one of these gun toting brain donors is going to be shot sooner or later.
If people feel intimidated that is their own problem and their own issue. But what you’re doing is typical amongst the left when it comes to the stereotype of gun owners.
So it’s cool when I show up for office hours packing my AR-15?
Anyone surprised?
And I really don’t think it can be stressed enough: an assault rifle.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/az_gun-toters_tied_to_violent_90s_era_militia.php
Thanks Indeed. I mean fearing that nut jobs are coming to presidental events with guns is totally unfounded! Besides Jay no one seems to be able to say why being armed is necessary or sane at this event. Conservatives being coy.
This is absolutely nuts.
Guns in the hands of citizens unknown, in the vicinity of the President of the United States. And some think it’s A-OK! Merely a harmless expression of their 2nd Ammendment rights…wink, wink. This SURELY couldn’t be an attempt to intimidate, could it? Cause’ wel all know that there hasn’t been much of THAT kind of tactic going on lately with conservatives and their town-hall baboonery.
Right-wing fruitcakes. Usually, their antics are annoying, and most often amusing. This example, however, is beyond disturbing.
JK
Guns in the hands of citizens unknown, in the vicinity of the President of the United States.
Not just guns. Assault rifles. Fucking assault rifles for fuck’s sake.
Indeed:
“For fuck’s sake,” learn what the fuck you are talking about.
The guy was NOT carrying an “assault rifle.”
An “assault rifle,” as defined by the military, has to have several features:
Capable of fully automatic or semi-automatic fire (selectable as to whether it fires a single round or multiple rounds from a single trigger pull);
Ammunition in a detachable magazine with a large capacity;
Ammunition of an intermediate power, between a typical pistol and a typical rifle;
and it must be firable from the shoulder.
The gun the guy had was NOT capable of firing as anything but a semi-automatic rifle.
You, in your ignorance, mean “assault WEAPON,” which was created by an ignorant Congress with the amazingly stupid “assault weapons ban.” Critics of that law have mockingly (and accurately) called it the “scary-looking weapons ban,” as the key features of a so-called “assault weapon” are almost entirely cosmetic:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
bayonet mount
flash suppressor
detachable magazine
barrel shroud
grenade launcher mount
Absolutely not one of those features would make a rifle a superior assassination weapon than a high-quality hunting rifle. In fact, several of them would make it worse — the non-fixed stock, for one, makes it a slightly less stable weapon for long-range shooting.
And let’s not even talk about the assassination potential of a bayonet lug. “Oh, no, he could stick a knife on the end of his gun!”
These “assault weapons” are for people who want military-looking weaponry. They could be vets who prefer the familiarity, they could be the sort of person who likes a “scary-looking” weapon, they could like the fact that “assault weapons” are often lighter than standard rifles, that they are smaller in general (shorter barrels, meaning usually less accurate), or just like making ignorant twits like you wet yourselves in senseless panic.
If you’re going to get obsessive about guns, you owe it to yourself to at least get the lingo correct.
J.
Funny that Oswald killed Kennedy with a bolt action rifle, no? Not even a semi-auto.
An AR-15 is semi-auto, but there’s also no reason in the world a person should be carrying one in the general vicinity of the president of the United States. I know, because with a small amount of training it’s a highly effective weapon that was issued to DC-area cops as a counter-measure in the wake up the “DC Sniper” shootings.
Anyone carrying a firearm at a public event involving the POTUS who isn’t a cop, soldier, or Secret Service should be locked up. It’s not unreasonable to keep guns away from the FREAKIN PRESIDENT of our country.
You do realize that we’ve had issues with this starting in 1865, correct?
Lock these idiots up and throw away the key. And continue to heap scorn on gun-porn idiots like Jay.
Yeah, I’ve said that there’s no sensible reason to bring a gun to an Obama event. But that doesn’t excuse people from either lying or loudly screaming their ignorance (or both — they really aren’t mutually exclusive) about the matter.
“gun-porn idiots?” Sheesh. For the umpteenth time, you moron, I don’t own any guns, never have, and probably never will. They hold no great fascination for me in and of themselves.
But they make a wonderful lodestone when it comes to Constitutional rights.
One of the distinguishing characteristics of the anti-gun nuts I’ve noticed is a profound, almost willful ignorance of guns. Jaim, you and Indeed are wonderful examples.
It’s remarkable. I’ve fired exactly one gun in my life, when I was about 11 or 12 or so, and yet I know far more about the basics of guns than you, who proclaim yourself enough of an expert on them that you will proselytize at length about their evils.
And in the process, spout such amazing bits of ignorance and misinformation that it’s hard to not call it “lying.”
J.
(And no, I didn’t contradict myself. I have fired a gun, but never owned one — it wasn’t mine. It belonged to the adult who very carefully supervised my use to make certain I fired it (twice) safely. And, amazingly enough, it neither left me traumatized nor evoked a craving for GUNSGUNSGUNS!!!!! of my own.)
What was I wrong about in terms of gun-specific issues?
You blathered on in a lame attempt to argue that an AR15 isn’t a threat because it’s semi-auto rather than full-auto, and I pointed out that you were absolutely dead wrong, specifically because police departments issue the weapon as a counter-terrorism firearm. Not to mention the fact that all of the assasinations and assasination attempts in American history were carried out with non fully-automatic weapons.
What was I wrong about in terms of gun-specific issues?
Nowhere.
Nor were you right in terms of gun-specific issues. You didn’t say anything about gun-specific issues. So you didn’t have the chance to once again demonstrate your ignorance. Good move on your part.
Too bad you countered it by lampshading it.
Until your 3:02 comment.
The gun the guy had was NOT an AR-15, but a Carbon-15 — a knockoff. The AR-15 version that you are referring to is a very restricted model that is capable of burst fire — firing in single-shot mode, or in “burst” mode with three rounds fired with a single trigger pull.
You’re comparing a Corvette with a Chevette, or — if you prefer — a Ferrari with a replica built on a Fiero chassis.
Ain’t the same.
Anyone carrying a firearm at a public event involving the POTUS who isn’t a cop, soldier, or Secret Service should be locked up.
Oh, I see, Jaim. In your little world, there’s a “bubble” around the President that suspends the Constitution.
Those people are idiots and asshats and attention whores, and you wanna lock them up for exercising their Constitutional rights?
Ain’t you quite the special little fascist…
J.
Oh, and Jaim, here are a few more right-wing gun nuts who disagree with you:
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. “There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally,” he said. “Those laws don’t change when the president comes to your state or locality.”
And another psycho:
Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a “relatively new phenomenon.” But he said the president’s safety is not being jeopardized.
“We’re well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms,” he said. “We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that their very strict laws on gun permits are administered. These people weren’t ticketed for events and wouldn’t have been allowed inside and weren’t in a position outside to offer a threat.” The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said.
Read it for yourself, you ignorant git…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803416.html?hpid=topnews
J.
The guy was NOT carrying an “assault rifle.”
Well it wasn’t a fucking Derringer. For fuck’s sake. Dumbfuck.
So J’s not concerned about this:
Good to know.
“Indeed,” if you’ve got a problem with the definition of “assault rifle,” then take it up with the people who created the definition. I’m sure they’re just waiting for your enlightened and educated “thoughts.”
So, I presume that you’d have no problems if people brought Derringers to these events?
And if Mr. Hancock had ever been convicted of anything over his past conduct, he’d be banned from owning or possessing guns. Too bad about that pesky “innocent until proven guilty” thing; it’d make your life a lot easier if you could just have everyone who you didn’t like locked up.
Tough shit.
J.
And if Mr. Hancock had ever been convicted of anything over his past conduct, he’d be banned from owning or possessing guns. Too bad about that pesky “innocent until proven guilty” thing; it’d make your life a lot easier if you could just have everyone who you didn’t like locked up.
Who said he should be locked up? All I said was that I was concerned. Which I am. You apparently are not. Good to know.
So, I presume that you’d have no problems if people brought Derringers to these events?
Well it would bother me a lot less than assholes with ties to Timothy McVeigh-type-right-wing-blow-shit-up groups toting
assault riflesreally fucking big firearms.if you’ve got a problem with the definition of “assault rifle,” then take it up with the people who created the definition. I’m sure they’re just waiting for your enlightened and educated “thoughts.”
I’ve got a problem with self-important douche-bags who apparently believe that nitpicking firearm semantics supersedes keeping tabs on right wing lunatics toting hugeass gun-type weapons outside of Presidential town hall meetings. Dumbfuck.
Indeed, if you don’t know the meaning of words, you shouldn’t try using them. Instead of calling the Carbon-15 an “assault rifle” (which it is NOT), why not simply say it’s “a big, scary-looking gun!!!!!” and avoid looking like the ignorant dipshit you clearly are?
And as far as scary “ties” goes… you really wanna go there?
Here’s a hint: “William Ayers.”
I agree that it’s stupid to bring a gun to these kinds of events. I just don’t agree that merely doing so — in clear accord with the laws — is grounds for tossing the dipshit into prison.
I’d have no problem walking up to one of these dipshits and telling him (or her) straight to their face precisely why I thought they were acting like a dipshit. I’m not afraid of my fellow average citizen.
During one similar incident, I had some Pat Buchanan supporters kindly offer to throw me through a nearby plate glass window. Such threats from dipshits are par for the course when one engages them in such discussions. And I was more concerned for my safety then than I would be talking to a guy carrying a Carbon-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder.
I’d just be a bit more careful to avoid doing anything that might be seen a physically provocative — a classic example of Heinlein’s observation that “an armed society is a polite society.”
J.
“I’d just be a bit more careful to avoid doing anything that might be seen a physically provocative — a classic example of Heinlein’s observation that “an armed society is a polite society.”
Because nothing emasclautes shut-in anger junkies like a quote from science fiction.
There are very well armed but not really polite societies, also. Afghanistan and Somalia come to mind.
I’d hesitate to call those places “societies,” PD. More like “war zones.”
Non-conventional ones, too — with no clearly defined lines of engagement.
Nice try, though.
J.
“Oh, I see, Jaim. In your little world, there’s a “bubble” around the President that suspends the Constitution.”
There very literally is. It’ called the Secret Service, and the need to protect our president from assassination.
Maybe that only applies to white presidents for you, racist scumbag? Please enlighten us.
What weapon was Kennedy assassinated with? What weapon was Reagan shot with?
You don’t need a SAW to kill a president. Or an RPG. And your verbal diarrhea and attempt to change the subject define you Jay, Jay Tea, whoever the fuck you are.
Not allowing guns near our president except for security officials is a completely reasonable and sane exemption of the 2nd Amendment.
My god you are fucking nuts. Sad and hilarious at the same time.
Oh, noes! Jaim called me a BAD WORD! I am crushed! Whatever shall I do?
Read up, you ignorant little git. The Secret Service had NO problem with this idiot. Their charge is to keep the guns out of the president’s immediate vicinity. They did that. This idiot never posed any threat, so they just kept a weather eye on him. No cause to arrest him, strip him of his property, or deprive him of his Constitutional rights.
Come back to America, Jaim. The reality of how things are in this nation have obviously escaped you, and you’ve substituted your own delusional fantasies.
On second thought, stay overseas. You can cause less harm there.
And read “The Ugly American.” I strongly suspect you could use a lesson or two from it.
J.
And read “The Ugly American.” I strongly suspect you could use a lesson or two from it.
I could, of course, be wrong but given your penchant for name calling and putting up hysterical posts on this site I think the novel’s meanings seem to have sailed right over your head.
I mentioed this when Obama was recently in nh and we saw the man with a pistol on his hip and the ominous sign. I said What if there were 80 like him?
Sure enough it happens again in az, not 80, but plenty.These people are literalists regarding the constitution and think
the government should not have a role in health care.
I believe that some conservatives no longer believe in democracy. Worse is coming.
Jaim babbled:
I mentioed this when Obama was recently in nh and we saw the man with a pistol on his hip and the ominous sign. I said What if there were 80 like him? (Typos made by the English teacher left intact)
(shrug) What if?
Go to a shooting range or a gun show some time. Lots of people with lots of guns, and I don’t recall a single incident ever breaking out at one of those.
Liberals like Jaim think that government should have the ONLY role in health care COVERAGE.
I believe that some liberals are terrified of democracy. They won their elections, and now are frightened that they won’t be able to hold the power they won.
Worse is coming, because Jaim is far from unique.
J.
The sequel to “The Ugly American” was called “The Man-Boy Who Never Left His Mother’s Basement Because He’s Afraid of Black, Yellow, and Brown People.”
Little known fact, but it’s true. It’s under Jay’s copy of “The Turner Diaries” as we speak.
“Liberals like Jaim think that government should have the ONLY role in health care COVERAGE.”
I’ve got relatives on Medicare, and they love it. So, um, yeah.
How ’bout you, big guy? Where was Ayn Rand when you needed life-saving medical treatment and you didn’t have insurance?
Oh, that’s right! In my paychecks!
And guess what? That’s fine. Just so sad to see such a bitter failure like yourself want to deny health-care to people who had the bad luck as you did to have an accident or a genetic condition.
The scientific term is “being a shitheel.”
Cruiser, the “Ugly American” was the best damned American in both that book and the sequel. The worst, in my opinion, were the over-educated Ivy League twits from the State Department.
Lederer and Burdick were prophets who we ignored to our detriment.
J.
Lederer and Burdick were prophets who we ignored to our detriment.
What do you mean we, Lone Ranger?
“over-educated Ivy League twits”
Like George W. Bush?
Cruiser, “we” as a nation. Collectively. I wasn’t even born when those books were written — for me, they’re a glimpse into the mindset of an earlier time.
Jaim, I stole that phrase from P. J. O’Rourke’s “Parliament of Whores.” He was considering the abolition of the State Department, but realized it gave us a place to get rid of said twits. The book was published in the late 80′s.
But “twit” has some particular connotations. I tend to think of John Kerry in this context, but it seems to apply to Obama as well.
“Twit” has implications of presumptuousness, putting on airs, aloofness, vapidity, and a certain sense of one’s innate superiority. Bush, as I recall the standard leftist talking points, was just stupid — and that’s a whole other genus.
You, sir, for example, are closer to a twit than a dolt. But sometimes it’s hard to tell.
J.
Cruiser, “we” as a nation. Collectively. I wasn’t even born when those books were written — for me, they’re a glimpse into the mindset of an earlier time.
This we that you, advertisers and talking heads in the MSM often refer to never existed. Not then, not now and not ever. My late parents, for example, never supported the American War in Vietnam, did not vote for Eisenhower and certainly did not believe that the sun rose and set in John Foster Dulles’ behind. This was also true of my paternal and maternal grandparents. I don’t recall any of my uncles – all gone now – who were veterans of World War II and Korea sharing this hive mindset either.
When you employ the term we it might be useful to keep in mind that you are only talking about a certain segment of the American population. The opinions and views of the rest of us didn’t count for squat back in the day.
BTW, I wasn’t aware that you know Barack Obama. When did you meet him? Did you hang out with him much? Shoot some hoops? Down a few brewskies together in the Loop?
Purely from observation, Cruiser. It was reinforced by his occasionally idiotic statements, such as accusing doctors of removing tonsils and amputating feet unnecessarily, purely for personal profit.
His foreign policy — “piss off our friends, cozy up to our foes” — is similarly indicative.
J.
His foreign policy — “piss off our friends, cozy up to our foes” — is similarly indicative.
I was not aware that the Canadians, Brits, French, Germans, Dutch, Swedes, Norwegians, Ghanians etc. are pissed at us. I know that they don’t think we have a pipeline to God but I didn’t know that they were upset at Obama. Was it something Hillary said?
Oh, PT. Apparently you missed Obama’s shipping terrorists to Bermuda without telling Britain, snubbing the Queen over Normandy, the way he’s treated Israel…
Meanwhile, he’s the bestest buddy of the dictators of Latin America, a chump of Russia, and apologist for Muslim terrorists.
Not to mention Canada over the “buy American” implications of his economic plan, Mexico’s wanting us to actually abide by NAFTA…
J.
J. brings up some excellent, unsubstantiated points per usual. All of the U.S.’s friends totally loved George Bush, Jr, because he was such an awesome regular guy* who thinked with his gut and Barry Hussein Al-Bama is a latte-sipping elitist who loves terrorists. So all our friends hate Obama. Everyone knows that.
*I read somewhere that the former CiC loves him some peanut butter sandwiches.
snubbing the Queen over Normandy, the way he’s treated Israel…
France does not have a royal family. At least not one that the French or Americans are obliged to defer to. The real rub here, my friend, is Israel isn’t it. Go on admit it. I was waiting on you to fess up about it.
Indeed, it might have escaped your notice, but Bush ain’t president any more. Hasn’t been for almost seven months to the day.
And don’t be knocking peanut butter sandwiches. Them’s fighting words.
J.
Let me expand upon that, Cruiser, because apparently you missed the story.
Obama was coordinating a gathering at Normandy on the 65th anniversary of D-Day. (That was June 6 of this year.) He arranged for all the heads of state of the allied nations to be invited — but overlooked the Queen of England, who actually served in the British military during World War II. When the gaffe was discovered, a belated invitation to the Crown was sent — and they sent Prince Charles.
J.
Indeed, it might have escaped your notice, but Bush ain’t president any more. Hasn’t been for almost seven months to the day.
That why I employed the past tense (“loved”) in my comment. That might have escaped your notice.
He arranged for all the heads of state of the allied nations to be invited — but overlooked the Queen of England, who actually served in the British military during World War II. When the gaffe was discovered, a belated invitation to the Crown was sent — and they sent Prince Charles.
Jay – I was aware of the story but I never interpreted the error as being deliberate on the part of the president. I am at a loss to understand why you or anyone else would think otherwise. You don’t seriously think that the president (and his wife) compile these lists. I knew Carter’s Chief of Protocol. He said these kinds of mistakes are not uncommon. Yes, the Queen drove an ambulance during the war. That doesn’t mean that Obama was out to get her because he is a secret Nazi.
Cruiser, I never said it was a deliberate slight. “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.” Or ignorance. Or stupidity.
And — as another Democratic president once said — the buck stops at Obama’s desk.
Further, this is NOT something that he can pass off as saying it was something he “inherited” from Bush. That one’s getting old.
J.
Further, this is NOT something that he can pass off as saying it was something he “inherited” from Bush. That one’s getting old.
Do you mean forgetting to invite the Queen of England to a commemorative event? Again, I think this is a minor issue but are you declaring that no representative of England was invited or that the invitation failed to include the Queen? Why would you interpret this oversight as a deliberate slight? I don’t get your reasoning here. Such errors are not uncommon.
Cruiser, did you miss the part where Obama managed to oust the governor of Bermuda without even realizing what he was doing? That was another slap in the face of the British.
Not to mention the return of the Churchill bust, after decades of honored presence in the Oval Office.
You fixate on the tiniest detail, and overlook the overall pattern…
J.
You fixate on the tiniest detail, and overlook the overall pattern…
Indeed. It’s all because B. Hussein Al-Bama loves terrorists and hates America. Thanks for clearing that up.
I don’t think that’s the case, Indeed, but it does satisfy Occam’s Razor, so maybe your idea has some merit.
I disagree, though. I think it’s a bit more subtle. More along the lines of “we can take our friends for granted and slight them, but we need to reach out to those who don’t like us so they might.”
It’s a common tact in interpersonal relationships, and works about as well there as it does in international relations…
J.
I think it’s a bit more subtle.
Excellent point. You know, They are sneaky like that. Subtle.
Are you a professional asshole, Indeed, or do you do this for fun?
“It” in this context being “the explanation.”
You, on the other hand, are not subtle. Indeed, you give new life to “disingenuousness.”
J.
Indeed used to be ‘ed’ here, Jay Tea.
He must’ve thought he went over the line when it came to assholiness, so a new name would let him hit the ‘reset’ button.
You, on the other hand, are not subtle. Indeed, you give new life to “disingenuousness.”
I don’t follow you.
I don’t follow you.
…and you never will.
…and you always will.
J.
Indeed used to be ‘ed’ here, Jay Tea.
If true, and I’m not saying it is (or isn’t), why would it matter? Why not focus on what I write? I mean, it’s not as if I congratulated someone for comparing Obama to Hitler on a nationally syndicated radio program or something? Why not just focus on the issues at hand, like wingnuts toting what some say are assault rifles at Presidential town hall meetings; self-proclaimed “conservative Republicans who believe in Biblical Values” saying “Heil Hitler” to Jews who endorse Israel’s national health care system; or Dennis crudely suggesting that Senator Lindsey Graham “likes dick”? What would a blog commenter’s name matter? What’s in a name? Stay focused, people.
What is it with guys like you and Zython that go around with false or multiple identities on blogs? It’s just weird and it’s chickenshit, ed. You guys act like it’s th econservatives who are all the devious bastards but you guys play are the ones playing the bullshit games.
Why not just focus on the issues at hand, like wingnuts toting what some say are assault rifles at Presidential town hall meetings; self-proclaimed “conservative Republicans who believe in Biblical Values” saying “Heil Hitler” to Jews who endorse Israel’s national health care system; or Dennis crudely suggesting that Senator Lindsey Graham “likes dick”?
Only the first was “at hand,” Indeed. The rest? Pretty much bullshit.
But if you want to bring in outside topics that are actually relevant in a real-world sense, how about David Axelrod’s raking in millions (indirectly, of course — laundered through his old firm that is still paying him off millions) from Big Pharma, or Obama’s accusing doctors of ripping out tonsils and cutting off feet purely for personal profit…
J.
Obama’s accusing doctors of ripping out tonsils and cutting off feet purely for personal profit…
He did no such thing. Have you read the transcript to which you’re referring?
Ed Morrissey is saying Obama wants to protect us from Tonsil Vultures and Foot Rustlers.
Ed Morrissey is saying Obama wants to protect us from Tonsil Vultures and Foot Rustlers.
And, I’m sorry to say amigo, this is the level of discourse one comes to expect from conservatives on health care. Take an example, a hypothetical, way out of context and run with it. Kind of irritating. Won’t address the actual point, of better incentivizing preventative care.
Parthenon, here are the precise words:
July 22, 2009:
“Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. … The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out,’” Obama told a prime-time news conference. The president added: “Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change; maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.”
Obama, Tuesday, August 11:
[L]et’s take the example of something like diabetes, one of — a disease that’s skyrocketing, partly because of obesity, partly because it’s not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family — if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they’re taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 — immediately the surgeon is reimbursed.
Seems pretty clear to me…
J.
What is it with guys like you and Zython that go around with false or multiple identities on blogs? It’s just weird and it’s chickenshit, ed. You guys act like it’s th econservatives who are all the devious bastards but you guys play are the ones playing the bullshit games.
I am so ashamed right now. Even if I were “ed” (which I may or may not “have been”), it’s the mere thought of you calling me out like that. And all this time I (and presumably “Zython”–if that’s even his/her real name!) thought I was merely commenting on a blog, and that the other commenters would react and respond (or not) to what was written and not to the name attached. You know, I heard that on some blogs, some commenters even use more than two (2) handles, and that some even go so far as to use a fake name to underscore (sometimes subtly!) the point they make in that comment. You know, just because they can. But I guess that’s Liberal Fascism for you. Obviously.
Tell you what, because I may or may not even be using my real name in these blog comments, and you take such offense to that, why don’t you direct me to your totally not anonymous blog? Or could you post your email address or terrestrial address so we could calmly discuss this in another venue? Just post it here in O-Dub’s blog so’s I can easily find it. As that “ed” character like to say, thanks in advance.
Now I’ve again taken some time to directly address your questions, yet you never seem to address mine? Is that, as you put it, “chickenshit”? For example, why did you write that South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham–as you so crudely put it (I can barely type these words)–”likes dick”? Could you answer that? Could you answer other simple questions? I have.
In the first graf, he is clearly stating that people respond to financial incentives. Are you going to tell me that isn’t true? In the second, he is absolutely not stating that doctors cut off feet (the implication being unnecessarily, because obviously they perform necessary amputations for profit, it’s their means of supporting themselves) for personal profit.
…and the amazing thing is that “Indeed” typed that whole thing one-handed.
(What the other hand was doing at the time is left to the imagination of the readers — but from the tone of the above bloviating, it should be fairly obvious.)
J.
What the other hand was doing at the time is left to the imagination of the readers — but from the tone of the above bloviating, it should be fairly obvious.
Saluting Hitler?
Parthenon, he’s saying that doctors will put their own financial benefit ahead of their patients’ health and well-being — a gross violation of their Hippocratic Oath and a tremendous insult to their professional integrity.
And the only reason he did that — as far as I can tell — is that his most successful form of debate is to demonize the opposition. He needs enemies in order to “win,” and here it’s the doctors.
I find that contemptible.
So do the doctors.
J.
Jay Tea, you ever work in a hospital? You ever work for doctors? That’s a rhetorical question, because your indignation clearly demonstrates that you haven’t. Doctors are not immune to market pressure, they select specialties and procedures to fit everything from their lifestyle to their pocketbook. If they can do and bill 2 or 4 procedures when only one is truly necessary, they’ll do it; if they don’t, their hospital administrator will find someone else who will. I’ve seen it, as has anyone who’s ever spent significant time in our health care system.
if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they’re taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 — immediately the surgeon is reimbursed.
Even you aren’t stupid enough to think this is an accusation of surgeons amputating limbs for profit, are you? It’s a reference to optimizing costs and how our reimbursement policy often rewards poor strategy.
Wrong word:
It’s a reference to optimizing costs and how our reimbursement policy often rewards poor strategy.
Should be “results in” not “rewards”. The point being that by not reimbursing for weight loss, diet modification, and general well care, the diabetic will end up with an expensive, incapacitating, and unnecessary amputation that will be reimbursed for a significant sum.
Crusty,
Why do you suppose the American College of Surgeons was so angry about both of these instances and called Obama’s depictions uninformed and fallacious?
“The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.”
—–
Why do you suppose the American College of Surgeons was so angry about both of these instances and called Obama’s depictions uninformed and fallacious?
Because they hate Hitler, like all good Americans do?
Mister ed, you should book mark this last reply of yours and come back to it in a week. Maybe then it might sink in as to why people for the most part refrain from answering your banal questions.
Mister ed, you should book mark this last reply of yours and come back to it in a week. Maybe then it might sink in as to why people for the most part refrain from answering your banal questions.
Are you suggesting that Obama’s health care proposals are somehow not akin to Hitler’s Nazi Regime? If so, your boyfriend is going to be mighty upset with you.
What did Limbuagh say, exactly, Mr. ed/not ed?
Maroon.
What did Limbuagh say, exactly, Mr. ed/not ed?
That’s funny, “Indeed”, I used to argue with another guy here about that same urban legend….ed something or other, can’t recall for sure, but what difference does it make what his name was anyway? A maroon by any other name is still a maroon.
“Dennis”:,i>What did Limbuagh say, exactly, Mr. ed/not ed?
You could start your Google search to figure out who said:
or
or
or
Then work backward from there to find out the exciting answer to what was originally said (and repeated!) by your boyfriend.
I’m sorry, your were saying something. I couldn’t understand you. Try taking Rush Limbaugh’s d*#k out of your mouth.
I used to argue with another guy here about that same urban legend
Which urban legend is that? I find that Snopes.com does an excellent job of figuring out which urban legends are true and which aren’t. In this instance, it doesn’t matter, because of the intended meaning of the comment (did you catch that?).
How goes the Googling?
Why do you suppose the American College of Surgeons was so angry about both of these instances and called Obama’s depictions uninformed and fallacious?
uh, Dennis, any idea how much surgeons make? Do you think they’re more concerned for their patients or their pocketbook? Because if you think this is about caring for patients, you’re exactly as obtuse as I expected.
FWIW, I can understand surgeons being irked by the tonsillectomy crack (although I’m not particularly sensitive to their concerns, having had an unnecessary tonsillectomy myself many years ago), but the amputation remark was not a slight at surgeons; if anyone should be offended, it is primary care physicians, who are being accused of shirking their responsibilities due to billing issues. You won’t hear complaints from PCPs about this because the accusation is entirely correct..
Hey, you know what, Socks? Mind if call you that for short? Anyway, you got me to googling and I went to his website, and it turns out he just did a voiceover for a new Family Guy show, where he turns Brian into a liberal. So I kinda can’t wait for that. And I have you thank, Soxie.
Much obliged.
Crusty, I’ve had two instances this year where a specialist talked me out of surgery that both could’ve easily done if profit was their main motive. One was for a partially torn rotator cuff on me, and the other would’ve been for brain surgery for a small hole in my daughter’s ear canal that was a possible cause of her constant headaches, of which we were all prepared to go through if he thought it was the correct procedure. He told us it might help but he didn’t think that was the cause. Even an MRI on my shoulder wasn’t done until I had done completed over two months of rehabbing it before I even knew it was torn. I won’t bore you with details on my kid, but suffice it to say I’ve been around the block and then some with what seems like countless doctors, any of which could’ve milked this situation to try whatever they thought they could get away with if maximizing their personal income was their objective. Not one of them has done that.
Obama was off the mark with these two examples and the media has largely ignored it as just his off-the-cuff ramblings. And the accusation about the amputation was not entirely correct. It wasn’t even partially correct. The reimbursent is nowhere near $50,000.
Dennis, re-read what Obama said. Then read it again. He’s talking about the total cost, which, when fully reimbursed (including surgeon, hospital stay, anesthesia, nursing, drugs, etc), will likely be between 30k and 50k. He certainly wasn’t speaking in the most artful manner, but it isn’t challenging to get the gist..
Not all doctors are greedy assholes, Dennis, and even the ones I’ve seen perform unnecessary procedures would strike most as “good guys”. As I wrote, most of the unnecessary work I’ve seen was run by patients in a “just want to check that everything is ok”-sort of way (FWIW, my experience in hospitals is more with internists running unnecessary tests than surgeons). Most surgeons will only perform surgeries that are prudent (the good ones barely have time for necessary procedures). That doesn’t mean they aren’t very concerned with their own bottom line, and they definitely view any change as a threat to their very healthy/wealthy status quo.
There was a doctor in Massachusetts a few years ago who just up and quit after at least 20 years of practice. Very good doctor, outstanding reputation (not a genius or a miracle-worker, but a solid, caring, respected physician) when he realized that, after paying his malpractice insurance and staff necessary for all the government-required paperwork, his take-home pay for the year was around 50K.
Solid doctor. Decades of experience. Barely 50K a year.
As far as Sock-boy’s comments about Limbaugh… sounds like a bit of a rotter. Glad I never voted for the guy.
J.
Solid doctor. Decades of experience. Barely 50K a year.
Get a job! Loser.
As far as Sock-boy’s comments about Limbaugh… sounds like a bit of a rotter. Glad I never voted for the guy.
Who is Sock-boy? You own Limbaugh. He is your spokesman. Sorry about that. Even Cliff May is disgusted. And when you’ve lost Cliff May…