That comment was a little scary. Good call.

A little?

Er, who (which thread)?

The latest Terri Schiavo one.

So I can get banned for calling for the head of William Henry Harrison?

Well fuck you and your dirty Whig Lovin' blog!

I've warned you about your extremist Bull-Moose/Know-Nothing agitation in the past, Amish Jackson.

If I hear one more slander against the Whigs, you are fucking gone, my friend.

The Mencken quote at the top doesn't seem to call for poetics

Amish owes fat kid (1) computer monitor.

It's in my will you filthy swine...

What the hell, the commenting software left out the entire opening part of my comment...

Loose shit ace. Take some of that crazy blogad money and FIX. THIS. SITE! MR. SPADES!

Ok. A lot scary. So scary I forgot to look at dusty!

Ace, I think you're overreacting. If you think you have some moral obligation to drink the hemlock when the Athenian Assembly comes for you, that's fine, but I think it's a big mistake to assume that this ethic undergirds the U.S. Constitution. Have you decided that this issue just can't be discussed?

No threats, guys, but just so SOMEBODY knows, if I'm ever incapacitated I don't care if I waste away to nothing but a bedpan and a bald spot, DO NOT PULL THE PLUG ON ME.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, death's the only thing you can't get out of.

I have decided that the political violence cannot be advocated here so long as we continue to enjoy a functioning democracy.

Were we to actually be suffering under a tyranny, that might be a different thing.

But it is said the blood of TYRANTS must ocasionally be spilled to feed the tree of liberty. NOT the blood of judges and citizens who merely disagree with you, and who furthermore are behaving lawfully (if absurdly).

So, yes-- political violence pretty much out here as a discussion point.

Sorry if this poses a problem.

I will re-evalute this position should we devolve into the banana-republic despotism that Paul Krugman has been predicting for three years.

It will be a great comfort to me when I am murdered like Terry Schiavo that it was done at the orders of a democratic government.

Well, Joshua, it's also no comfort to anti-war leftists that Iraqi citizens were killed due to the actions of a democratic government.

Do you suggest that they, too, have the right to start killing political figures in the US to vindicate their policy positions?

Think about it.

Rocketeer: You forget, in order to live, you have to jump through a number of legal hoops for a living will, including writing & notarization requirements.

To die, you just have to tell someone. Over TV. Or maybe not tell him at all. Just have a fucking poll on whether you should live or not, given, you know, your apparent "condition".

All this talk about who should have the right to speak for Terri, the husband or the parents, seems to me to be missing the point, and clouding the true issue.
Should Terri not have been appointed an independant lawyer to protect her interests? A lawyer that would challenge any attempt to "let her die"(kill her)? Proof of her wishes would have to be offered. Hearsay would not be admissable.
I am shocked beyond belief that a woman is to be killed on the say so of her husband.

Michael Schiavo killed his wife
Cut her tube with a Bowie knife
Laughed at her parents, made them cry
How many days did she take to die?
One... two... three... four... five...

Mr. Paul Anka did not resort to violence when discussing his concerns with the band's performances of late.

That kind of violence has no fucking integrity.

So, "kill all the lawyers" is in bad taste then?

Mind you, I'm no advocating targeting *specific* lawyers. Just, well, *all* of them.

Can't we go out today, this afternoon, and take a scythe to the Bar?

It'd be very therapeutic, I promise. . .

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

P.S. This does not include See-Dubya. When the world is mine, *his* death will be quick and painless.

Umm, are you going to starve me?

Don't forget Sobek - I think he's a lawyer too, and besides the fact that he's a fucking alligator, he's alright.

Was the comment deleted, or have I just developed a scarily high tolerance for violent posts?

I'm a lawyer too. And Dave, you just lost your free one-hour consultation!

But if you want to kill all lawyers except for me, Sobek, See-Dub and Ace (who has some legal training...or at least some connection to the legal profession as he stated in his Stanford interview) that would be OK.

Cause, it would mean a lot of crazy legal fees if only 4 people were left to handle all those cases....

But here is what can definitely get you banned:

Comments that advocate, or seem to advocate, political violence as payback for losing a political dispute.

Ace, this is a very good rule. Bravo to you and well done.

I didn't see the original comment but, if it matters, I side with Terri Schindler's parents in this dispute.

Scout,

everything but the very beginning was deleted.

See-Dubya, I don't see much reason for you to fear Dave's threat. Death by starvation and dehydration is a very gentle process. Beautiful, even, in its way.

Or so I read in the papers. (P.S. I hope [sarc] tags weren't necessary here.)

Rats!!! and double Rats!!!!

Missed the juicy freakish stuff. Hate that.

Although, poor Terry Schiavo's case has been giving me strange fantasies of overthrowing our judicial system somehow - if this is how it give us "justice".

I am not a right-to-lifer - just someone that cannot believe that a person's life could be taken on hearsay of someone who appears entirely biased.

Geesh, I hope those judges can live with themselves .. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I got kicked off of Freeper for far less so this all smacks of overraction to me. But as I said when you told me not to use the word kill, OK ACE its your blog.

It's not overreaction.

Umm, let me ask: When people on DU or Daily Kos post shit like that, do we, or do we not, call attention to that and on that basis accuse them of being moonbats, extremists, and supporters of political violence?

Yes or No?

So how the fuck do we get a pass? Just because we're "right"?

No. Everyone thinks they're "right." That's why they're arguing.

Nicely put Ace, and you are of course right.

Don't agree with me, VonK. I'm having enough trouble as it is.

Nah, Ace, you don't know trouble until Cedarford or lil' Dickie Bennett agree with you.

Then, my friend, you shall know trouble. Oh yes....trouble shall be yours! :)

Ace - I know, you are soo right about that, I couldn't agree more that you are having enough trouble as it is.

Keep up the good work!

I agree with ACE.

Regardless of how it plays in Pascagoula, Arkansas or Great Neck, LI - Jack M..........it's rule of law stuff. Even if the polls didn't have people saying they would rather die than live like whats left of T Schiavo by a 5 to 1 margin, if it was closer......it wouldn't matter....even if 67% say they would pull the plug on T Schiavo if they were her guardian vs. only 15% that buy the "life at all costs" argument that wouldn't....

Even then, we have to work off law and due process...

Though many of that 15% have only seen the Right to Lifer's argument that Schiavo is recoverable and not yet learned what her doctors say is a certainty - she lost her cerebral cortex, her EEG cortex activity flat lines, only brainstem activity is recorded....and no one, no one has ever come back from a permanent vegetative state.

Americans are anything but tolerant these days about lunatic political fringes using terrorism as a recourse when they lose political battles.

Earth to Ace - denial doesn't make nuts go away. The latest headlines from MN should be enough to convince you of that.

If you think the judges & lawyers involved won't be needing to wear vests and pack heat for a while after this, then I suspect your ivory tower doesn't have any staircase.

I've only got one person banned from my blog, Mr. DogStar. So while it's pretty hard to draw my ire, it's not impossible.

I will refrain from saying I will "moidalize" anyone who angers me.

Sorry for starting trouble.

Gee, lil Dickie*, at what point in this entire thread were we talking about YOUR blog and YOUR banning practices?

Oh yeah..we weren't.

Unless of course your ego is so huge that a casual aside I made somehow makes you think the whole nature of the thread revolved around you. In which case, that's just sad.

But, just for the record, I would like to be banned from your site as well. I prefer the company of the banned to yours.

Thanks!

Cederford, except this Doctor.

“The important thing for people to understand is that she can eat and swallow right now,” said William Hammesfahr, a neurologist who has examined Schiavo. He is in many of the videos circulated through the news media showing that Schiavo is at times responsive and aware.

“They are truly withholding food from a person who is awake, alert, and can eat and swallow,” Hammesfahr said. After spending at least 10 hours with Schiavo several years ago, he told Florida Judge George W. Greer that she can improve with therapy.

First of all, Anonymous, failing to sign your post doesn't mean I can't see who's writing. Or at least the IP.

It annoys me that a lot of leftist posters write posts like yours, which sort of vaguely talk up violent payback, while not calling for it expressly. Whenever I read those posts, I tend to think, "Here's someone basically just calling for shootings but too chickenshit to say so flat-out."

Maybe you didn't mean to do that. Maybe you just mean to speculate about political violence.

I don't like it either way. The possibility of political violence can be discussed, of course, but I generally appreciate the discussion to be prefaced with a caveat that one is not advocating such.

I've been very critical of lefties who have suggested killing administration officials. I'm just not going to tolerate mirror-image suggestions here.

In a moment, Rightwingsparkle, you are going to hear how that doctor is a Christian-Right-to-Life-Neocon-Asian-Jewish-Red-Diaper-Baby-BibleThumping-Trilater Commission attending-Skull and Bones belonging idiot. Just warning you.

This is a pretty free-wheeling site. I have one seriously-enforced rule. I don't think this makes this the internet equivalent of Stalinist Russia.

There are lots of sites where people can have all sorts of fun making vaguely-worded threats and hinting about coming violent payback. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.

"Not on this fucking site, ever. If you want to post such murderous impulses, go find a nice white-power or survivalist site with less dedication to the principle of lawful political agitation."

Why single out white-power or survivalist sites? What of sites on the other end of the spectrum?

"But it is said the blood of TYRANTS must ocasionally be spilled to feed the tree of liberty. NOT the blood of judges and citizens who merely disagree with you, and who furthermore are behaving lawfully (if absurdly)."

"Merely disagree"? When that's the substance of the beef, then yeah, there's no justification for political violence. When those same judges are indirectly or directly putting the lives of my family at risk, rubber stamping the government theft of my property, and disregarding the explicitly expressed will of the people, then political violence IS an option, because all other political solutions have been denied. It may not be a very good one, for a lot of reasons, but it nonetheless remains one.

Better to challenge someone who advocates political violence to explain why that's the only viable option, rather than quashing any discussion.

"Justice delayed is justice denied"

"Why single out white-power or survivalist sites? What of sites on the other end of the spectrum?"

Because most posters of a violently-mineded bent who read THIS site are unlikely to decide to bop on over to the Daily Kos.

Your opinion is duly noted, but the fact is, I just don't FEEL like having to explain why civil war and political violence are not Good Things.

I don't want this bullshit on my site. Period.

Anyone who wants to have academic discussions about the political usefulness of knocking off fellow Americans they disagree with is hereby invited to begin their own blog dedicated to the topic.

Cedarford, please, please - let the polls go. For one thing, half the ones you're citing are the self-selecting online kind which are statistically worthless, for another thing, how much do any of the respondents know about the case? I mean, some papers still refer to her as being on a ventilator, which we can all agree isn't true. For another thing, the fact that "the vast majority of people think something" is not necessarily proof of its validity. I mean, back in the day you could have gotten a pretty big American majority agreeing that blacks were in, fact, intellectually inferior to whites. Does this make it true? No, it's still false; the people responding would have been answering from their own ignorance and preconceived ideas.

Anonymous....

It has nothing to do with whether "denial will make nutcases go away". In this particular instance, it's more about whether or not the owner of a site has a right to deny a platform to people who advocate "political violence".

Ace, and every other blogger out there, has the ability to police their blog according to whatever standards they choose to enforce. Further, these standards can be completely arbitrary, and can change on a moments notice. It's called "tough shit" if you don't like it.

Some blogs are like the Wild West; pretty much anything goes. Other's are like Communist China; a hint of dissent and it's a metaphorical bullet to the back of the head in the form of a ban.

Ace runs a pretty open place here. Pretty much anything goes (witness Cedar's anti-semitic rants or my own frequent use of profanity and invective). But you know what? Both Cedar and I appreciate that Ace calls the shots here.

If Ace told me tomorrow that I couldn't call Cedarford a "cocksucker" or Dickie Bennett a "liberal elitist cocksucker" without getting banned, then I have to play by those rules if I want to continue to come back here and comment.

Ace is under no obligation to provide bandwidth to anyone. In his case, he is particularly offended by those who advocate political violence. I can fully appreciate his approach: Let them vent someplace that will embrace them, or let them stew in their own frustrated juices.

Taking the point further, it's when people show up and start demanding that "their preferred rules" become the "sites preferred rules" that I get my hackles raised. Joshua Chamberlain flirted with doing this in his earlier posts on this thread.

More explicitly, Lil Dickie* insinuated that this ought to be the case last night. In fact, Lil Dickie* volunteered the names of others (full disclosure: including me) that he believed Ace should ban, because we offended HIS notions of commentary even if we didnt offend ACE's notions.

Play by the house rules, or don't play at all fellas. It really aint that hard.

This is an interesting remark by Jack M: If Ace told me tomorrow that I couldn't call Cedarford a "cocksucker" or Dickie Bennett a "liberal elitist cocksucker" without getting banned, then I have to play by those rules if I want to continue to come back here and comment.

He's claiming that his acts of libel and defamation are endorsed by Mr. Spades, and Spades is not disagreeing.

Interesting indeed.

Sonetka - the poll citing by ACE, the Gallup, plus the ABC-Wash Post poll, the Time Newsweek polls, the Princeton survey group polls on the SChiavo questions are NOT - as you say - self selecting and statistically worthless.

I brought them up because like the feminists and other fringe-dwellers....many on the Right to Life bandwagon see the whole country behind them....when in fact they have scant support....and polls are useful in seeing how far out of the mainstream they are,.

And for trends.

As the public learns more detail....do they go to the Rad Femme position on abortion, the RTL "Love all life at all costs" positions....or away. The trends show the more they know, the more they think Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die, the less they buy the Religious Right's sliming of Michael Schiavo, and the more the Schindlers look like fanatics.

Calm down before you hurt somebody, Ace.

Mr. Anonymous, in cedarfords case its called definition of character. HTH

Fine, anonymous.

If it makes you feel better, I retract and apologize for any statement made, by me, on this board to which you have taken offense, including anything which you might consider to be a "libel" or "defamation".

I withdraw any statement I have made which you believes imputes a false statement of fact about Cedarford or Dickie Bennett., and apologize as well.

I however, reiterate my OPINION. And my opinion is that Cedarford and Lil Dickie Bennett are cocksuckers.

Apology accepted?

Not so fast, Jack, isn't truth a defense to libel?

Seriously, though, Mr. "interesting " anonymous there is on the slow bus to wack city if he thinks calling someone a "cocksucker" in a heated exchange is libel.

Any reasonable person would take that as an insult and not as...

Oh, why do I bother? What are you, a pre-law major? And what, are you going to sue? Unless you are either Cedarford or Richard Bennett, you lack standing.

Unless you are yourself a "cocksucker", and believe that an association with those two would give your sort a bad name. Then you might have standing.

"I've only got one person banned from my blog..."

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh God, Dick*, that was priceless. So I guess that means, now that I'm gone, there's just you, eh?

*who, by the way, is a cocksucker.

P.S. How's that bedsore search going?

Calling somebody a "cocksucker" who is not in fact a "cocksucker" would be an act of libel or defamation or both, I believe. And acting in such a way as to collude in the libel or defamation would also be uncool in some legal sense.

So the sensible thing for these kids to do would be to go into every comment thread where they made these charges and recant them, not just say it once in some obscure place.

I don't personally have anything against "cocksuckers", and some of my best friends, both male and female, are of that persuasion. I just don't believe it's right for me or others to claim to have talents that I actually lack.

If somebody was to approach me for a good cock-sucking based on these claims they would become very sad when they found I was unable to perform the service they required, and the suffering in the world would increase. We want to err on the side of life, so it's best to stick somewhere close to the truth.

That being said, I'm pretty sure Jack M's momma is a whore.

That last post was mine: Richard Bennett. For some reason the code is eating my ID.

Ah, Dickie*...

Still waiting for a hit over at your place?

*who is, by the way, a cocksucker.

Actually Dogstar (whose mother is a whore), we're having quite a lively discussion or three over at my blog. It's too bad you can't join us.

See-dub, while I agree with you I think I'm gonna take the high road.

To this effect, I offer the following public apology and public retraction of remarks made both yesterday and today by me to Cedarford and Richard Bennett. I also offer an apology to our host, Ace.

After I typed my earlier post defending Ace's ability to set standards, I realized that I probably wouldn't be as lenient as he is if I had a blog as successful as this one has become. To that extent, it would be hypocritical of me not to clean up my act, so that I, as a guest, conform to the same standards here that I would want adhered to if it were my blog.

First:

Ace- I apologize for my breach of decorum. You have a nice place here, and I apologize to you for any posts which were out of line. As a guest here, we shouldn't be pushing you to figure out the limits of what you will allow. We should mind our manners. I did not do so, and am not proud of this fact.

Second:

While the joke was fun while it lasted, I will no longer refer to either Cedarford or Richard Bennett as "cocksuckers", and I apologize for ever having done so, and I retract those insulting remarks. Nor will I include the James Taranto * parody that was a common running joke for the past two days in my future discussions of, or with, either of these two gentlemen.

While passions surrounding the Schiavo case do run high, that is no excuse for ridiculous levels of name calling. And while I may think more highly of some other posters than I do of Mr. Cedarford and Mr. Bennett, based on the contents of their posts (which is, after all, the only thing I actually know about either of them) my language, admittedly, was excessively insulting.

I forgot three simple rules:

1)Intelligent people can disagree without being disagreeable.

2)People should be treated the way you would like to be treated yourself.

3) Don't let your temper get the best of you.

So, with these rules in mind, I offer the following apologies and retractions:

Cedarford: While I vehemently disagree with many, if not most, of your publicly stated positions, I apologize to you for any comments directed towards you which you consider to have been personally hurtful, or that have failed to contribute pro or con to the relevant, substantive portions of the conversation.

Richard Bennett: Similarly, while I disagree with your position on the Schiavo matter, and while I get the impression that we would probably not be too chummy if we knew each other personally, I apologize to you for any comments that could be taken to impugn you as a person rather than the substance of your remarks.

It's easy to forget humility when cloaked behind the anonymity of the internet. That's a lesson that I'll try to keep in mind for all future postings.

I can vouch for Dogstar not being a cocksucker.

In his family, only his daughter qualifies.

classy

Ace's house. Ace's rules.

That's. Just. The. Fucking. Way. It. Is.

Advocating political violence is Loose Shit. Ace doesn't do Loose Shit on his blog. He is the Most Important Man on this blog and you're fucking making a maniac out of him.

Finally someone understands that's just the mood I'm in, the kind of integrity kick I'm on.

You've all got three days to get your shit together. One week.

Whoops, after Jack M's apolegia, my 10:37 witticism falls victim to bad timing.

OK Jack M, I will avoid the ad hominem battles with you.

News on MRIs: She had one.

7/24/1990
MRI Report Dr. Pinkston
Profound atrophy w/ very atrophic appearing cortex. Mild white matter disease, anoxic/hpoxic injury.

The damage was so obvious by CAT scan, EEG Flat-Ling of all brain functions but brain stem activity, MRI, and all the PVS tests that the Docs being sued in 1995-96 conceded there was zero hope and didn't request additional tests.

1)Intelligent people can disagree without being disagreeable.

My dad predicted RFK's assassination within a week or two of it actually occuring, and even gave a physical description of what the perp would probably look like, that was a dead on match for Sirhan Sirhan after the details came out.

I'm pretty sure (actually positive) the old man never had anything to do with it, since he was in NY at the time and didn't give a rats ass about RFK one way or the other anyway. What old man was though, was an astute observer of the national mood, never underestimated the stridency of crazies, and old enough at the time to have accumulated some hard knowledge about the way the real world *sometimes* operates.

IMO, it's a grave mistake to confuse what was probably hardnose observation with advocacy.

Incidentally, I have new information that leads me to the conclusion that Jack M's momma is not now, nor has she ever been a whore.

Mr. M. is a great American, a patriot, and a man of principle and conviction; any other great American would be proud to argue with his bullshit.

8:20 pm post by somebody without a name

Apparently you have abso-frickin'-lutely no idea what libel is. Opinion is not libel. Presentation of incorrect *fact* as fact is libelous, you twit.

Buy a Black's Law Dictionary before dispensing legal opinions, you friggin' moron.

Ok, I just have two questions..

who can I not call a cocksucker?

and where's Joe?

congrats mate! Fine job and fine site!

casino online