Gay Patriot Header Image

Have We Learned Nothing, America??

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 11:31 am - April 19, 2013.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America

http://storify.com/GayPatriot/have-we-learned-nothing-america-1

Share

280 Comments

  1. Well, they are from Chechnya, and Chechnya is in the Caucasus mountains, so they are Caucasians, so at least David Sirota should be happy.

    Comment by V the K — April 19, 2013 @ 12:26 pm - April 19, 2013

  2. The fact is, they’re Muslims. Chechnya has a substantial Muslim population.
    Does this surprise anyone?

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 19, 2013 @ 12:42 pm - April 19, 2013

  3. Right? All these deaths from gun-violence and yet the GOP still cares more about banning gays from marrying than about stronger regulations to get assault rifles out of the hands of insane people.

    Comment by Righty Tighty — April 19, 2013 @ 12:48 pm - April 19, 2013

  4. http://www.politicususa.com/glenn-beck-calls-obamas-impeachment-boston-terrorist-attack.html

    Comment by Vince Smetana — April 19, 2013 @ 12:50 pm - April 19, 2013

  5. The House of Peace strikes again it appears.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 19, 2013 @ 1:05 pm - April 19, 2013

  6. #3 – And Vince, I’m assuming there’s a point to your posting of this link?

    Let me ask you this question: if it were Bush in charge during this catastrophe, would you be doing the same as Beck?

    Think VERY carefully before you answer.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 19, 2013 @ 1:09 pm - April 19, 2013

  7. Best line of that ‘report’ Vince linked rustyed… (Note, Audio is from Media Matters, not the Blaze or primary source)

    “Using that logic, George Bush should have been impeached sicne he had actionable intelligence…”

    Didn’t we hear that from Levi and other libs for the past 12 years?

    My local radio station has been (stupidly) brodcasting constant feed from Boston, so I didn’t hear Glenn this morning, and can’t find it on the Blaze.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2013 @ 1:14 pm - April 19, 2013

  8. BTW: This group is the same one that masterminded both the Moscow subway bombing and the massacre in Beslan:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2013/04/19/rampage-boston-marathon-suspects-mike-mulugeta-and-sunil-tripathi-in-late-night-crime-spree-gunfight-chase/

    Not surprisingly, the president of Chechnya is distancing himself from this – and blaming US for it:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chechen-president-says-american-upbringing-blame_718098.html

    Maybe this wasn’t the best week to discuss disarming Americans and giving amnesty to foreigners. (I’m looking at you, MSNBC.)

    I bet Bostonians wish they had guns now. This is another reason I’m a proud CHL holder here in Texas.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 19, 2013 @ 1:16 pm - April 19, 2013

  9. Sorry, but exactly how do you “profile a Muslim”, when that’s a religion?

    It’s pretty sick that you’re advocating for Muslim profiling. By your logic, we CLEARLY should be going after Caucasian people, because these two men happened to be. And let’s not forget domestic terrorists like McVeigh and Kaczynski (oh wait, but those are post-9/11 and refute your point, so they don’t count, right?).

    Comment by Mike J — April 19, 2013 @ 1:21 pm - April 19, 2013

  10. The more I hear about the Gang of 8, the more I get suspicious of being for this bill. Frankly, we need a fence along the border, then we can look at possibly bringing in some of the illegal aliens. The problem is manifest in that many legal people overstay their visas, thus becoming illegal. We need to revamp the law increasing the number of highly skilled immigrants, lessen the number of low skilled workers. Furthermore, when we bring in an immigrant, you can only bring a spouse and children, not the entire family. Many of these families have elderly parents, and they are a drain on the system.

    Comment by davinci — April 19, 2013 @ 1:27 pm - April 19, 2013

  11. Why yes,

    We should be checking people from the Caucus region Mike J. Especially Chechnyans.

    Oh, wait, those are facts. No wonder you don’t get it.

    Idiot.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2013 @ 1:34 pm - April 19, 2013

  12. Right? All these deaths from gun-violence and yet the GOP still cares more about banning gays from marrying than about stronger regulations to get assault rifles out of the hands of insane people.

    Comment by Righty Tighty — April 19, 2013 @ 12:48 pm – April 19, 2013

    Massachusetts has all the gun confiscation and ban laws that liberals want.

    So Righty Tighty, since you claim passing these laws will eliminate all assault rifles, all shootings, and all guns in the hands of insane people, today’s incident proves that you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

    Now, will you deal with facts, or will you scream and cry and spin like your tantrum throwing Obama?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2013 @ 1:46 pm - April 19, 2013

  13. Sorry, but exactly how do you “profile a Muslim”, when that’s a religion?

    This, of course, coming from the same people who scream all Christians want to murder gay people, or blame the Jews for all the problems of the world like Barack Obama’s minister Jeremiah Wright.

    It’s pretty sick that you’re advocating for Muslim profiling. By your logic, we CLEARLY should be going after Caucasian people, because these two men happened to be. And let’s not forget domestic terrorists like McVeigh and Kaczynski (oh wait, but those are post-9/11 and refute your point, so they don’t count, right?).

    Comment by Mike J — April 19, 2013 @ 1:21 pm – April 19, 2013

    Actually, you and your fellow Barack Obama Party supporters already profile white people, already profile Christians, already profile conservatives and libertarians, and insist that all veterans are potential killers who should be deprived of their right to own weapons.

    So yeah, you profile already. And what’s worse, your profiling didn’t catch Hasan, didn’t catch the 9/11 terrorists, and didn’t catch these terrorists — mainly because your profiling is aimed at destroying Obama’s opponents and the people Obama bigots like you hate, rather than actual terrorists.

    So why is that, Mike J? Why do you profile and insist that opponents of Barack Obama are terrorists, but Muslims who kill American citizens aren’t?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2013 @ 1:54 pm - April 19, 2013

  14. Peter Hughes > No.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — April 19, 2013 @ 2:12 pm - April 19, 2013

  15. #14 – Then Vince, you are either a liar or a hypocrite. Or both.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 19, 2013 @ 3:22 pm - April 19, 2013

  16. Oh come on. We all know that voter fraud is just a myth perpetuated by racist, xenophobic right-wing crazies.

    The Dims and their handmaidens in the MSM have assured of this fact repeatedly.

    We don’t need no stinkin’ voter ID laws. So what if a few foreign terrorists or a few million illegal aliens are voting in our elections?

    Comment by Observer — April 19, 2013 @ 3:32 pm - April 19, 2013

  17. Whose interests are being served by our immigration policy? Rubio, McCain, et al have yet to answer that question.

    In this case, what national interests are being served to allow indiscriminate immigration by people from Muslim regions? Yes, it’s true that most Muslims are not engaged in violent jihad but a disturbing number are sympathetic (see reactions after 9-11).

    Mark Steyn mention the report that one of these guys was naturalized on 9-11-2012. Apparently, he’d not assimilated very well.

    Mark also had the usual cases of utter ineptitude of our immigration service (including the policy if management to discourage employees doing their duty).

    Comment by SoCalRobert — April 19, 2013 @ 5:39 pm - April 19, 2013

  18. Peter H. > Sorry if you can’t handle the truth. Perhaps you should consider your motivations behind writing the question.

    Regards,
    Vince S.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 19, 2013 @ 5:40 pm - April 19, 2013

  19. Wow Bruce
    I had no idea you were such a nutter.
    Linking this to immigration reform is so unbelievably illogical l.
    Clearly your hatred has clouded your judgement and forced your brain to make horrible illogical treats.

    Comment by mike — April 19, 2013 @ 6:08 pm - April 19, 2013

  20. Wow
    Linking this to immigration reform?!?!?!?
    Really?
    Your hatred and fear has clearly forced your brain into an illogical cycle.

    Comment by mike — April 19, 2013 @ 6:16 pm - April 19, 2013

  21. Linking this to immigration reform?!?!?!?
    Really?
    Your hatred and fear has clearly forced your brain into an illogical cycle.

    Comment by mike — April 19, 2013 @ 6:16 pm – April 19, 2013

    Translation: Concern-troll and Obama puppet mike is seeing his attempt to import millions of Obama Party voters evaporate before his eyes.

    Concern-troll mike, why don’t you explain for us the logic of requiring American citizens and legal immigrants to pay higher taxes so that you can give welfare checks, free education, and free healthcare to illegal immigrants?

    Better yet, why do you call Americans who want laws against illegal immigration enforced racists?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2013 @ 6:24 pm - April 19, 2013

  22. 18.Peter H. > Sorry if you can’t handle the truth.

    Not really, since you’re not a Bostonian.

    And we’re well aware that you aren’t mentally capable of owning a gun or using one responsibly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2013 @ 6:26 pm - April 19, 2013

  23. Maybe if we didn’t feed into these constant distractions like gays in the military, gay marriage, women in combat, free birth control….we could focus on the economy and national security.

    Obama and the Democrats will always take advantage of fools who can be split from the herd on any issue.

    Comment by Smarty — April 19, 2013 @ 7:11 pm - April 19, 2013

  24. I love how liberals call people names first, think second, inform themselves-never.

    The older one, the ringleader, should have been deported as a felon in 2009, instead he was given citizenship on 9/11/12.

    And most of the 9/11 hijackers would have gotten amnesty under the current proposals as well, so this needs to be linked.

    We cannot afford to keep importing every welfare case and anti-American in the world to satisfy the liberal desire for demographic change.

    Comment by Smarty — April 19, 2013 @ 7:13 pm - April 19, 2013

  25. Comment #20

    It always amuses me to count the argumentative fallacies employed in your post.

    Thanks for the chuckle

    Comment by mike — April 19, 2013 @ 7:33 pm - April 19, 2013

  26. “suspect” now in custody. yea! now, let’s waterboard the bugger (after we cut his legs off)

    Comment by Charles — April 19, 2013 @ 9:04 pm - April 19, 2013

  27. “CBS’ Stephanie Lambidakis quotes Justice Dept official: No Miranda warning read to captured suspect. Invoking public safety exception.” -Mark Knoller

    Eric Holder and Obama hardest hit!

    Comment by Ignatius — April 19, 2013 @ 9:40 pm - April 19, 2013

  28. Comment by Mike J — April 19, 2013 @ 1:21 pm – April 19, 2013

    If this were a serial killing or a mass shooting, what are the odds based on previous incidents of the perpetrator(s) being a white male within a particular age range? Pretty damn high. Does this mean that all serial killings and mass shootings are done by white males? No. See Wayne Williams, Aileen Wuornos, Seung-Hui Cho, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, among others, for example. Yet the fact still remains that for serial killings and mass shootings the perps are usually white males. When looking for a suspect with very little to go on, what do you suggest police do? Ignore an obvious pattern? Profiling can be abused for sure, not just when it comes to innocents who share the characteristics of the profile but also in hampering an investigation when contrary evidence is overlooked, but to completely ignore this tactic that has worked over and over again in quite a number of cases is just nuts. Essentially your asking police to sit on their hands and do nothing lest they offend somebody. That’s not very wise.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — April 19, 2013 @ 9:50 pm - April 19, 2013

  29. Everyone in this country is free to own a gun and be of any religion they wish. Both are Constitutional rights.

    So why is it that when a white gun owner commits a massacre such as Sandy hook, it’s wrong to profile gun owners.

    How DARE you mess with gun owner rights.

    When a Muslim commits a massacre, such as the Boston Marathon bombing…. Well….

    Apparently, we should just keep all Muslims out of the US.

    BTW, from everything I’ve read so far, and note, i say so far because much more is going to come out about the Tsarnaev’s, there were not any items in the brothers past that would have raised a red flag to stop them from coming here. The elder bro got into trouble when already here, and it looks like he talked little bro into following him down the path that eventually led to the bombings.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — April 19, 2013 @ 10:06 pm - April 19, 2013

  30. 25.Comment #20

    It always amuses me to count the argumentative fallacies employed in your post.

    Thanks for the chuckle

    Comment by mike — April 19, 2013 @ 7:33 pm – April 19, 2013

    Considering that post #20 is yours, this is another fine example of how liberal attempts at derogatory humor invariably end in backfire.

    Which is probably why liberals like yourself are so dependent on government; you repeatedly demonstrate that you really AREN’T capable of functioning without a full-time nanny.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2013 @ 11:18 pm - April 19, 2013

  31. So why is it that when a white gun owner commits a massacre such as Sandy hook, it’s wrong to profile gun owners.

    How DARE you mess with gun owner rights.

    When a Muslim commits a massacre, such as the Boston Marathon bombing…. Well….

    Apparently, we should just keep all Muslims out of the US.

    The tendency of liberals like Sonicfrog to create strawmen dilemmas like these always used to confound me until I realized the two fundamental beliefs of liberal dogma:

    1) Everyone else needs me to tell them what to do, but no one should ever be allowed to tell me what to do.

    2) White people and Christians, are responsible for all problems of society.

    3) Due to 2), people who are not white and not Christian are morally superior to white people and Christians in every fashion.

    You can distill all of Sonicfrog’s arguments down to these dogmas. Since he is required by dogma to hate white people and Christians, he can logically argue that white people and Christians should be stripped of their rights even if they DON’T commit crimes — such as his argument that all gun owners regardless of their behavior should be profiled. Furthermore, by the twisted standards of liberalism, self-hatred for being white and coming from a Christian background is a virtue, and the more you as a white person of Christian background demand that white people and Christians be deprived of their rights, the better you are — which is why he demands that white and law-abiding Christians should be profiled while Muslims are not. Finally, since the Boston terrorists are not Christian and therefore morally superior in Sonicfrog’s world, he has to create a situation in which he can still somehow blame Christians and white people in their actions — which is why his entire argument revolves around claiming that all gun owners, whether they advocate murdering people or not, are complicit in the Sandy Hook massacre, while Muslims, even when their religious beliefs clearly justify and advocate for murdering others, are not.

    As always, these arguments for “gun control” by people like Sonicfrog have nothing to do with guns or weapons or behavior; they are about using governmental power to carry out Sonicfrog’s desire to harass, punish, and strip the people he doesn’t like of rights.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2013 @ 11:34 pm - April 19, 2013

  32. To use the ‘one life standard’ of Obama, clearly we should stop *all* immigration to prevent something like tihs happening again.

    Or to put it in mikey ‘logic’

    mike: Oh no, someon, in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws, a criminal engages in theft and murder. Lib’s answer? We need to take guns away from law abiding citizens to keep them away from criminals.

    Someone who immigrated breaks the law and murders people immigrated and was a terrorist.

    mike: How dare you take this as an example of immigration needing reform! The Somali terrorists in Ohio, the Time Square Bomber, th underwear Bomber… You can’t use those as arguing against immigration.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 20, 2013 @ 9:06 am - April 20, 2013

  33. So why is it that when a white gun owner commits a massacre such as Sandy hook, it’s wrong to profile gun owners.

    In the investigation of a crime or to prevent a crime, there may be cases when it is warranted. Not sure how useful it would be to profile all gun owners though since that’s almost akin to profiling folks who own cars. Both cross all racial, ethnic, religious, political and gender lines, with I’m sure quite a number of other things too.

    Apparently, we should just keep all Muslims out of the US.

    Not something I advocate nor would I support. There are a lot of Muslim terrorists but not all Muslims are terrorists, not at all. Now those who embrace an extremist Islam? Sure. I also have no problem with limiting or placing under stricter review those coming from areas where extremist Islam holds sway.

    BTW, from everything I’ve read so far, and note, i say so far because much more is going to come out about the Tsarnaev’s, there were not any items in the brothers past that would have raised a red flag to stop them from coming here. The elder bro got into trouble when already here, and it looks like he talked little bro into following him down the path that eventually led to the bombings.

    It wouldn’t surprise me. In most of these incidents we can find “signs” that were overlooked and no matter what we do to try and prevent it happening again somebody somewhere will still slip through the cracks.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — April 20, 2013 @ 9:58 am - April 20, 2013

  34. It always amuses me to count the argumentative fallacies employed in your post.

    You haven’t so far. Which obviously means that there are none.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 20, 2013 @ 11:15 am - April 20, 2013

  35. So why is it that when a white gun owner commits a massacre such as Sandy hook, it’s wrong to profile gun owners.

    Because the NRA doesn’t have imams running around telling its followers that non-gun owners are subhuman and worthy of extermination. Young NRA thugs don’t go around raping disarmed women and beating up disarmed homosexuals because the NRA teaches that this behavior pleases the Supreme Being.

    Unlike a certain religion.

    Comment by V the K — April 20, 2013 @ 12:55 pm - April 20, 2013

  36. #29: “So why is it that when a white gun owner commits a massacre such as Sandy hook, it’s wrong to profile gun owners.”

    Sonicfrog, who is this Sandy Hook ‘white gun owner’ you’re referring to? If you’re referring to Adam Lanza, you are peddling some gross misinformation. Lanza did NOT own a gun of any kind. He STOLE his mother’s guns. He certainly TRIED to become a gun owner, but when he tried to purchase a rifle at a local gun shop just days before the shooting, he was turned away because he didn’t want to apply for the 14-day background check. Hmmmm, isn’t it interesting how that played out?

    Sonicfrog, if your arguments were actually viable and your positions made the most sense, you wouldn’t need to lie about the facts or rely on embarrassingly-pedestrian false analogies. Just something for you to think about.

    Comment by Sean A — April 20, 2013 @ 1:45 pm - April 20, 2013

  37. All these deaths from gun-violence and yet the GOP still cares… [not] about stronger regulations to get assault rifles out of the hands of insane people. – Comment by Righty Tighty

    Massachusetts has all the gun confiscation and ban laws that liberals want. – Comment by North Dallas Thirty

    Zing!

    If this were a serial killing or a mass shooting, what are the odds based on previous incidents of the perpetrator(s) being a white male…? Pretty damn high.

    No, JohnAGJ. That’s a myth. You yourself rattled off a bunch of non-white examples, but the question would be, do the overall statistics show a greater likelihood of white shooters? Bob Owens says no, or at least that it’s significantly disputed: http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/03/wapost-op-ed-blames-whites-for-mass-shootings-facts-remain-minorities-are-over-represented-for-all-murder-types-including-mass-murder/

    You’re right, just on the gender (male) and age range (18-48).

    BTW, from everything I’ve read so far, and note, i say so far because much more is going to come out about the Tsarnaev’s, there were not any items in the brothers past that would have raised a red flag to stop them from coming here.

    Apparently sf missed the main post: Bruce’s point was (in part) that there were things in their background and their actions that could or should have raised flags about their being here, if only we had rational processes around stuff like immigration, voter ID, etc. (which we do not). Like their being Muslim Chechen males of no particular skills and with no family already in the U.S., who promptly committed vote fraud once they were here. Does NOT mean they’re terrorists; does mean that some kind of flag could have been raised on them, just a little bit sooner, if the U.S. were run more rationally.

    To make myself clear on the larger topic: I’m 100% in favor of rational, legal immigration. Other countries pick and choose which immigrants they want. I’m in favor of the U.S. doing likewise. In my area, we could use a lot more of the wonderfully educated, hard-working Chinese and Indian immigrants who want to come to the U.S. Or (say) Cubans who come to escape government oppression, and who already have family ties here. The hardest-working person I know is a Cuban immigrant and I’m grateful that he’s here.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2013 @ 12:49 pm - April 21, 2013

  38. No, JohnAGJ. That’s a myth. You yourself rattled off a bunch of non-white examples, but the question would be, do the overall statistics show a greater likelihood of white shooters? Bob Owens says no, or at least that it’s significantly disputed

    Ok. We still have the market cornered on serial killings so I guess we can rest on our laurels there. ;)

    Not really important anyways to my main point.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — April 21, 2013 @ 2:36 pm - April 21, 2013

  39. In absolute numbers, the largest number of serial killers are white. However, the number of black serial killers far exceeds the percentage of the overall black population. One of any race is too many.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 21, 2013 @ 2:49 pm - April 21, 2013

  40. We still have the market cornered on serial killings

    Not according to this: [Update 4/26: Frenzy dying down, link's didactic purpose has been served, my choice to remove it. Previous warning advised that link had language which I wouldn't use, and which is Not Safe For Work. --Jeff]

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2013 @ 3:02 pm - April 21, 2013

  41. P.S. To make my view clear: As Iggy said, “One of any race is too many.” Race is-or-should-be irrelevant.

    Having said that, this myth that “Whites are disproportionately the mass shooters / spree killers / serial killers / psycho ex-soldiers / etc.” is just that, a myth, and as such, it is an odd curiousity. I mean, why would the myth exist? My guess is media bias: For some reason, our media today is race-conscious and seems to prefer crime stories with white perpetrators – and if possible, non-white victims – sometimes even when the stories are untrue (as in the famous Duke “lacrosse team” case). Either that, or somebody spreads the myth because it reinforces their political-social agenda, whatever that may be.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2013 @ 3:06 pm - April 21, 2013

  42. Race is-or-should-be irrelevant.

    ILC linked a racist website that appears to freely use the n-word and to describe black Americans in the most offensive manner.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 21, 2013 @ 3:11 pm - April 21, 2013

  43. No, I linked a list of black serial killers. Then made clear in a P.S. that I did NOT endorse any racism that may attach (or be inferred, for example, in the commentary of any morons who should happen to visit sometime). That is what I did.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2013 @ 3:15 pm - April 21, 2013

  44. Yes, you linked to a racist website. There’s no denying you linked to it and there’s no denying it’s racist. Whether you endorse its content wasn’t addressed in my post at all.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 21, 2013 @ 3:21 pm - April 21, 2013

  45. Whether you endorse its content wasn’t addressed in my post at all.

    Except by implication. But hey, keep climbing down from any implications; I’m OK with your doing so.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2013 @ 3:26 pm - April 21, 2013

  46. Keep providing more ammunition for gay left-wing websites. Great job!

    Comment by Ignatius — April 21, 2013 @ 3:28 pm - April 21, 2013

  47. (yawn)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2013 @ 3:30 pm - April 21, 2013

  48. Others reading this, prepare to read a bunch of racist garbage if you click on the link ILC provided. You’ve been warned. I wouldn’t trust any information posted there.

    [Jeff adds: The article lists 57 serial killers, claimed to be black, and says little else. The article in turn has many links to news articles, Wikipedia, etc. documenting many of the claims. In that regard, informational value is present. As I have already suggested, but now make explicit in order to satisfy the demands of politically-correct pedantry: I do not endorse, and indeed I regard as abhorrent, the article's single and unnecessary use of the N-word, as well as any other negative words that may occur anywhere else on the hosting site. I note with satifaction that at least 2 of the article's commenters already took the same position.]

    Comment by Ignatius — April 21, 2013 @ 3:39 pm - April 21, 2013

  49. It sounds like a situation of “don’t shoot the messenger” on one hand.

    It’s a compelling list.

    But, on the other, as far as its veracity, not all the links check out, some even refer to other “blogs.” As well, a great portion of the list isn’t backed up. I’m not saying that all these killers don’t exist, only that if someone is going to make a case, it would behoove them to be comprehensive and provide ample supportive evidence. AGAIN, I DO NOT dispute the list, only the author doing a small percentage of the mission they’re trying to accomplish. Very half-@ss for someone who so passionately wants to make a point.

    As well, as Ignatius wisely points out, if you “consider the source,” it’s very problematic.

    Additionally, they do not provide a corresponding list of non-blacks. Instead, they rely on one’s memory of media coverage of the non-black serial killer. The “truth” is that the list of non-black serial killers is exceptionally longer than those who have been made infamous by networks and newspapers across history. Many of the serial killers who have received the most coverage are the sickos who were the most salacious and provided the “best” and “most original” copy. We get desensitzed and what was once unbelievable and disgusting, becomes mundane and uninteresting to the media.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 21, 2013 @ 3:58 pm - April 21, 2013

  50. Let me save you the effort of worrying, Ignatius; liberal, left-wing, and Obama-supporting gays and lesbians are overwhelmingly racist.

    Hence, there’s no need to moderate facts; gay liberals and Obama supporters will ca you racist whether you are or not, and they’re hypocritical about it to boot.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 21, 2013 @ 4:17 pm - April 21, 2013

  51. So, if I were interested in information re. Nazi death camps, found a “list” on a neo-Nazi website that made all sorts of ridiculous, hate-filled claims about Jews, gays, etc., then linked to it, presenting it as valid information, that wouldn’t bother anyone?If we’re making an argument and use a link to another site in order to back up that argument, we implicitly approve of that website, i.e. the content there reflects our own levels of understanding, scholarship, veracity, values, etc. Even if the racist website that was linked has some valid information isn’t the point. It’s possible that ILC linked to the first list he could find via his browser, not realizing what the site is. Your guess is as good as mine.Frankly, I’d rather be a pedant in ILC’s estimation than a very sloppy thinker and lazy blogger in mine, let alone a racist or one who is callous to racism in the mind of some leftist just waiting for some scrap of evidence “proving” that the narrative re. anyone unlike him is true.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 21, 2013 @ 4:29 pm - April 21, 2013

  52. Not that it’s of any consequence, but that list looks vaguely familiar. I could be mistaken, but I believe it has been linked by a GP commenter before in the last two or so years. Or perhaps someone at Big Hollywood. (Those are the only two sites I’ve visited that would find it “relevant.”) Whether or not it was ILC, I can’t say. But, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it before and I’m almost certain it was here. I could be completely wrong. Perhaps someone else could shed some light.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 21, 2013 @ 4:37 pm - April 21, 2013

  53. “Even if the racist website that was linked has some valid information isn’t the point.”

    Ah, we see. It isn’t whether the I formation is valid or not, it’s who is saying it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 21, 2013 @ 4:38 pm - April 21, 2013

  54. “Even if the racist website that was linked has some valid information isn’t the point.”

    Ah, we see. It isn’t whether the information is valid or not, it’s who is saying it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 21, 2013 @ 4:39 pm - April 21, 2013

  55. I’d like to re-focus on the point I was responding to. JohnAGJ said this:

    We still have the market cornered on serial killings

    Earlier, I neglected to question (but, I now do question) JohnAGJ’s use of “we”. What does it mean? I assumed JohnAGJ meant that -he- is white, and was using an editorial “we” to refer to whites generally. John, you can correct me if that’s wrong.

    Anyway, John’s implication was that non-white serial killers may exist, but not in number sufficient to upset a general contention that white people had “the market cornered on serial killings”. In response to that specific point, a list of non-white serial killers might make an impression, if it were long and documented. So I answered:

    Not according to this: [link given previously, with warning added later]

    I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that my readership would understand the following implications that I intended to be carried in that very brief answer:

    (1) That I felt some editorial (and moral) distance from the article; saying to JohnAGJ in effect, “I don’t know everything, but here’s one thing that would tend to go against what you just said.”
    (2) Thus, I was not claiming that the list (or all its citations) were perfect. Or, for that matter, complete.
    (3) Neither I was addressing (much less endorsing) any additional/underlying viewpoints that the article’s author or the hosting web site may hold.
    (4) And, that the search for non-white serial killers need not and should not stop with that one list. Given my general position, expressed on this blog many a time, that “race” is a stupid way to categorize people because the people in all of the alleged (ill-defined) “races” are basically the same: I should expect that a comparably large number of Asian, Hispanic, etc. serial killers – and white – to be out there, if one were concerned enough to research it and compose such lists.

    I apologize for leaving the above implications unstated (up to now) and for having blindly presumed too much of some positive quality (intelligence, or just friendliness? goodwill?) in certain readers.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2013 @ 4:40 pm - April 21, 2013

  56. “Frankly, I’d rather be a pedant in ILC’s estimation than a very sloppy thinker and lazy blogger in mine, let alone a racist or one who is callous to racism in the mind of some leftist just waiting for some scrap of evidence “proving” that the narrative re. anyone unlike him is true.”

    So we’re supposed to mind our speech while leftist gays are allowed to say whatever they want, no matter how ludicrous it is.

    Or put differently: a leftist gay’s assertion that all conservatives are racist is valid regardless of how sketchy their evidence.

    More likely, Ignatius, you’re trying to smear ILC and desperately casting about for a means to do it. Very liberal of you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 21, 2013 @ 4:43 pm - April 21, 2013

  57. Or put differently: a leftist gay’s assertion that all conservatives are racist is valid regardless of how sketchy their evidence.

    NDT, I read Iggy’s contention more along the lines that we’re supposed to care if leftists misunderstand us.

    Operative word, misunderstand. And we shouldn’t care. You spoke rightly in the other thread:

    most of us don’t really care what [leftists] think [of us] or use it to shape our own behavior. When you know someone’s going to lie about you regardless of what you actually say, there’s no reason to moderate your own behavior accordingly.

    When someone misunderstands me, I check what I’ve said. Sometimes, I misspeak. If I do, that’s my fault and I try to fix it. Other times, I don’t misspeak. If I don’t, then the misunderstanding is the other person’s fault and I don’t care if they go to their grave with it.

    In the present case, I see it as sort of a hybrid. I was rather too terse, too cryptic: that’s my fault, and to rectify it, I’ve posted comments expanding on what I did mean. At the same time, a friendly reader could/would be friendlier about it; thus, to the extent there is some brouhaha here, it’s not totally my fault.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2013 @ 5:01 pm - April 21, 2013

  58. For the record, I make no insinuation nor believe a “guilt by association” between someone who uses the list in question to make a potentially valid point and the questionable background of the person who posted the list.

    However, the list is shoddy at best. And its veracity is important to the discussion. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone say, “Black serial killers don’t exist.”

    But, if someone wants to make the case that there is a black serial killer out there who has the salacious, bat-shit crazy, and “media-friendly” backstory like a Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Son of Sam or John Wayne Gacy, please feel free. Those are the types who steal the headlines and unfortunately become infamous. And if there is a black serial killer who “fits the bill,” but the media “underplayed” his/her existence, then feel free to make that point, which would be a valid one.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 21, 2013 @ 5:12 pm - April 21, 2013

  59. And, if anyone wants to make the argument that the media downplayed the identities of the Beltway snipers, please feel free.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 21, 2013 @ 5:14 pm - April 21, 2013

  60. For the record, I make no insinuation nor believe a “guilt by association” between someone who uses the list in question to make a potentially valid point and the questionable background of the person who posted the list.

    Acknowledged. Thank you.

    don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone say, “Black serial killers don’t exist.”

    No, but this day, you have definitely heard them try to say “[Whites]… have the market cornered on serial killings.” (Assuming that the “we” in the original did mean “whites”.)

    Which comes close; implying that there are only a few non-white serial killers.

    But, if someone wants to make the case that there is a black serial killer out there who has the salacious, bat-shit crazy, and “media-friendly” backstory like a Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Son of Sam or John Wayne Gacy, please feel free.

    I don’t have time. Consider this, though. Whites in America outnumber blacks roughly 4-5 to one. So, if somebody has time to look into that list of 57 possibilities (again, many of them with links Wikipedia or to media stories) and come up with *one* whose backstory is “salacious, bat-shit crazy and media-friendly”, your point is answered.

    Sorry I don’t have the time/interest. Have to take a family call now.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2013 @ 5:20 pm - April 21, 2013

  61. I read Iggy’s contention more along the lines that we’re supposed to care if leftists misunderstand us.

    Actually, my contention is that we should do everything we can to avoid handing leftists ammunition they can use against us. One of the tiredest leftist tropes is that those on the right are racist. Why affirm it? There’s no such thing as ‘unintentional’ blogging.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 21, 2013 @ 5:26 pm - April 21, 2013

  62. I understand. I also just realized that many of my “white” examples were from the 1980s. Serial killers–black, white, Asian, hispanic–just aren’t something I hear about on the news anymore.

    Is that just me?

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 21, 2013 @ 5:27 pm - April 21, 2013

  63. *I mean the serial killer types in the vein of the aforementioned, etc. Maybe that’s because of technology, forensics, etc.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 21, 2013 @ 5:33 pm - April 21, 2013

  64. Actually, my contention is that we should do everything we can to avoid handing leftists ammunition they can use against us. One of the tiredest leftist tropes is that those on the right are racist. Why affirm it?

    Which is, of course, why you cower in fear and backpedal at the mere thought of leftists calling you a racist.

    Get this through your head, Ignatius; leftists, Barack Obama supporters, and the gay and lesbian community will never stop calling you a racist. Ever. Especially when the mere threat of them doing so silences you and makes you change your behavior to give them what they want.

    You are trying to make a rational appeal to people who are irrational bigots. Their power comes from you pussyfooting around them, like incompetent oarents with a spoiled child.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 21, 2013 @ 6:34 pm - April 21, 2013

  65. You are trying to make a rational appeal to people who are irrational bigots.

    Maybe, NDT. But to be precise, I would say that Iggy is trying to make an irrational demand of rational people (us), that we join his pussyfooting around people who are irrational bigots.

    When I say “demand”, I mean that he’s not bothering to make a rational appeal to us. His opening shot, back at #42, named my name but did not bother even to speak to me directly.

    (This comment is, of course, speaking to you about something you said.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2013 @ 8:28 pm - April 21, 2013

  66. Ok, now we seem to be going into the weeds and completely missing the point. If you’d like, I’ll retract every single example I gave of crimes committed where whites are supposedly the usual perpetrators. I have no wish or see little point in debating those examples anyways. So find something that each one of you collectively or individually agree that whites ARE the usual perps and insert them in place of the examples I gave. I really don’t care what those crimes are supposed to be, whether you are correct or not, and I have no wish to discuss whatever they may or may not be as they are not relevant to the point I made. That point still remains: I have no problem with law enforcement using profiling of any race, including whites, where appropriate in solving crimes. I reject the blanket statement put forth usually by the left that all profiling is wrong. That is absurd and would seriously hamper investigations.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — April 21, 2013 @ 9:45 pm - April 21, 2013

  67. This thread really has gone off-the-rails. Based on ILC’s economic principals and past comments it would be highly inconsistent for him to hold any racist ideology and any suggestion that he does is disgusting. It’s a bad link, that’s all it is. That being said, it’s a little revealing that ILC just can’t say “oops that’s a crummy website sorry about that.” Unfortunately ILC, you just makes it worse when you justifying your targeted immigration policy based on ethnic stereotypes as you do in comment #37..

    Comment by mike — April 21, 2013 @ 10:14 pm - April 21, 2013

  68. I could be wrong, but I thought the crux of Ignatius’ argument was that by extracting perhaps pertinent information from an irrational and deranged source, conservatives weaken their foundation, only because liberals will, fairly or unfairly so, always get the upper hand in such situations and will be handed the “advantage” of, rightly or wrongly, accusing the conservative movement as a whole “racist” and having it “stick.”

    But what do I know.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 21, 2013 @ 10:50 pm - April 21, 2013

  69. mike: The information at the link “is what it is”. Yes, I should have warned that there was language there which was Not Safe For Work. Not doing so was a mistake, now corrected. Having said that: It doesn’t change the information, the majority of which looks real (contrary to some of the attempts in this thread to impugn it; comments advise “consider the source” but glide over the fact that the majority of sources to be considered are, in fact, mainstream news articles + Wikipedia).

    As to any ethnic stereotypes around immigration, kindly take your complaints to Mark Zuckerburg and other Silicon Valley moguls who hire scads of Indians and Chinese, and who want the U.S. to admit more skilled/educated immigrants (somewhat like me, though I would want to look at their efforts specifically, before endorsing them). The standards that most of us prefer would of course be ethnic-neutral, focusing on skills, prior U.S. family ties, etc.

    I have no problem with law enforcement using profiling of any race, including whites, where appropriate in solving crimes. I reject the blanket statement put forth usually by the left that all profiling is wrong. That is absurd and would seriously hamper investigations.

    John, agreed.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2013 @ 10:55 pm - April 21, 2013

  70. You would think that if the media has indeed conditioned society to believe that most serial killers are Causasian and “whitewash” so to speak the ones who aren’t, there would be one measly rational conservative out there to put together a cohesive and compelling case to accomplish what its disreputable predecessor “Black Peoria” set out to.

    What’s that saying … put an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters and one of them is bound to type the Gettysburg Address? Well, 7 billion people and 2 or so billion computers, you’d think the claim could be proven by ONE person who is unbiased, intelligent and invested enough in the matter. If it were true.

    I for one find the THEORY intriguing. But, want to hear it from someone with a brain who isn’t a racist and knows what they’re talking about. Not someone who comes across as a prejudiced conspiracy theorist.

    But, I’m sorry, a long list of names, over half of which lacks factual support (not saying evidence doesn’t exist, but it’s not readily available from someone making a strong assertion), and the names that do you include links, some of which are dead or link to other “blogs,” untrustworthy or not.

    But, perhaps the media is slowly weeding out true conservatives, and the dying breed doesn’t have the numbers to produce someone to take on the task. Perhaps the media and the powers that be have done such an effective job, they’re we’re long passed the point of finding out the truth that they supposedly have shrewdly swept under the rug a long time ago.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 21, 2013 @ 11:10 pm - April 21, 2013

  71. Wikipedia on serial killers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer

    The racial demographics regarding serial killers are often subject to debate. In the United States, the majority of reported and investigated serial killers are white males, from a lower-to-middle-class background, usually in their late twenties to early thirties.[6][11] However, there are African American, Asian, and Hispanic (of any race) serial killers as well, and, according to the FBI, based on percentages of the U.S. population, whites are not more likely than other races to be serial killers.[11] Criminal profiler Pat Brown says serial killers are usually reported as white because the media typically focuses on “All-American” white and pretty female victims who were the targets of white male offenders, that crimes among minority offenders in urban communities, where crime rates are higher, are under-investigated, and that minority serial killers likely exist at the same ratios as white serial killers for the population. She believes that the myth that serial killers are always white might have become “truth” in some research fields due to the over-reporting of white serial killers in the media.[68]

    Some authors state that African American serial killers are as prevalent, or more so, in proportion to the African American population. According to some sources, the percentage of serial killers who are African American is estimated to be between 13 and 22 percent.[69][70] Another study has shown that 16 percent of serial killers are African American, what author Maurice Godwin describes as a “sizeable portion”.[71] Anthony Walsh writes, “While it is true that most serial killers are white males, white (Anglo) males are actually slightly underrepresented in the serial killer ranks in terms of their proportion of the general male population” and that “[w]hatever the true proportion of black serial killers in the United States is or has been, it is greater than the proportion of African Americans in the general population.”[72] Popular racial stereotypes about the lower intelligence of African-Americans, and the stereotype that serial killers are white males with “bodies stacked up in the basement and strewn all over the countryside” may explain the media focus on serial killers that are white and the failure to adequately report on those that are black.[12]

    Some blogger’s take on it (I don’t know the guy, but the article is not badly written): http://www.kevinnelson.com/race-breakdown-of-serial-killers-657

    Only a few systematic accounts of the race and ethnicity of serial killers exist. There is an exhaustive study of African American serial killers (Homicide Studies 2005; 9; 271) by criminologist Anthony Walsh, and also Eric W. Hickey’s book, Serial killers and their victims, Brooks/Cole, 1997. Walsh identified 90 African American and 323 white American serial murderers, all men operating between 1945 and 2004. (Though Asians, Hispanics and Native Americans were not included in the study, their addition would not alter the fact that most serial killers are white men.) African American serial killers made up 22% of Walsh’s sample, a figure in close agreement Hickey’s enumeration. But, as blacks number well below 22% of the U.S. population, they are actually overrepresented among the ranks of serial killers — roughly by a factor of 2.

    So it turns out that while whites make up a numerical superiority of serial killers, blacks make up a much higher percentage of serial killers relative to their percentage of the population…

    Kathy Shaidle, writing in a more colorful vein, reminds people of the Zebra Killings, wherein Nation of Islam (i.e., Black Muslim) killers sought revenge on whites in San Francisco: http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/2012/06/24/media-told-us-incessantly-that-serial-killers-were-overwhelmingly-white-male-20-45-years-old/

    OK folks, start working on ways to dismiss the information.

    Reminder: I wouldn’t normally (or don’t really) care about this, EXCEPT that (1) I was misinformed in this thread that whites had “the market cornered” on serial killings; and (2) when I provided one page of evidence to the contrary (which was someone’s list of 57 black serial killers), I was told that it was “crummy”, untrustworthy, etc. as apparently a racist had put the names together (somehow invalidating the names, or the exercise or something). New links provided; tell me now what’s wrong with those.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 22, 2013 @ 1:15 am - April 22, 2013

  72. Thanks for doing that ILC. From my perch, you seemed to have killed a couple of birds with that last stone.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 22, 2013 @ 1:45 am - April 22, 2013

  73. Thanks for doing that ILC. From my perch, you seemed to have killed a couple of birds with that last stone.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 22, 2013 @ 1:45 am – April 22, 2013

    And after playing the RAAA-CIST!!! card on him, no less.

    How utterly douchey of you to confer your imprimatur on ILC’s efforts to prove a point most thoughtful and intelligent folks already understood.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 22, 2013 @ 5:09 am - April 22, 2013

  74. MSM, I’m more disappointed that my critics here have not yet pointed out that my preferred immigration reforms (preferring skilled/educated immigrants and stronger border security, while still allowing for political asylum and/or prior U.S. family ties) would likely have done nothing to keep out the Tsarnaev brothers or prevent the Boston terror bombings.

    It would be a fair point. Very fair, since I criticize Obama for demagoguing the Giffords & Sandy Hook shootings, on behalf of laws which would have done nothing to stop those.

    But my critics were too distracted. Waaaayyy too distracted.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 22, 2013 @ 9:36 am - April 22, 2013

  75. I could be wrong, but I thought the crux of Ignatius’ argument was that by extracting perhaps pertinent information from an irrational and deranged source, conservatives weaken their foundation, only because liberals will, fairly or unfairly so, always get the upper hand in such situations and will be handed the “advantage” of, rightly or wrongly, accusing the conservative movement as a whole “racist” and having it “stick.”

    But what do I know.

    You get it, Vince. Thanks.

    …it would be highly inconsistent for him to hold any racist ideology and any suggestion that he does is disgusting.

    and

    And after playing the RAAA-CIST!!! card on him, no less.

    How utterly douchey of you…

    From my reading of the comments, no one has suggested that ILC is a racist, let alone accused him of it. I certainly haven’t. Vince hasn’t.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 22, 2013 @ 10:43 am - April 22, 2013

  76. I could be wrong, but I thought the crux of Ignatius’ argument was that by extracting perhaps pertinent information from an irrational and deranged source, conservatives weaken their foundation, only because liberals will, fairly or unfairly so, always get the upper hand in such situations and will be handed the “advantage” of, rightly or wrongly, accusing the conservative movement as a whole “racist” and having it “stick.”

    But of course, when liberals outright lie, such as the screaming Obama claiming that Romney murdered a man, or the screaming Harry Reid claiming that Romney was a tax cheat, or the screaming Childress racist bigot sisters using government grant money to push their hate theories against white people, then there are no problems and no consequences, no foundations are weakened in the least, and concern-troll mike and Vince Smetana go on and on and on about what wonderful people liberals are.

    So frankly, conservatives don’t need to waste the effort. Liberals and their supporters don’t respect or acknowledge facts, don’t respect or acknowledge evidence, and freely admit that it’s OK to lie and smear people for political advantage. Once you acknowledge this fact, you recognize very quickly that their screaming for piety dances from conservatives is nothing more than hypocrisy, and you can much more easily blast them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 22, 2013 @ 12:45 pm - April 22, 2013

  77. With all due respect ND30, I’ll go with Ignatius’ assessment of my words.

    Regards,
    Vince S.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 22, 2013 @ 1:04 pm - April 22, 2013

  78. But what do I know.

    Probably nothing that hasn’t already been vetted through the GayLeftLib echo chamber, since you seem incapable of an original thought.

    But then again, that’s typical of our trolls.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 22, 2013 @ 4:37 pm - April 22, 2013

  79. Margaret Thatcher:

    I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 22, 2013 @ 4:49 pm - April 22, 2013

  80. If the shoe fits, then wear it, Imelda.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 22, 2013 @ 5:45 pm - April 22, 2013

  81. To quote another great female icon, Catwoman:

    meow.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 22, 2013 @ 5:46 pm - April 22, 2013

  82. Funny he should reference the Iron Lady, who at least benefitted from being opposed by MP’s who had lived through the Blitz.

    We have to deal with spoiled, self-absorbed, dependent half-wits whose primary concern seems to be the preservation of system of entitlement that they’ve neither earned nor understand.

    Hence, their argument became null and moot the second Code Pink kicked Mother Sheehan to the curb like a bad habit.

    Mr. Smegma really should read a f*cking book once in a while.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 22, 2013 @ 6:25 pm - April 22, 2013

  83. My Sharia Moor (aka Eric Olsen),

    How is that Newtie Gingrich campaign going?

    Regards,
    Vince S.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — April 22, 2013 @ 6:33 pm - April 22, 2013

  84. Better than Ashley Judd’s.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 22, 2013 @ 6:50 pm - April 22, 2013

  85. Yeah, right? Way too much Botox in those cheeks.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — April 22, 2013 @ 6:53 pm - April 22, 2013

  86. It isn’t the botox…it’s the achingly uninformed worldview, coupled with the sense of moral superiority so often slathered upon the sheltered, obtuse progressive.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 22, 2013 @ 7:05 pm - April 22, 2013

  87. Then you must be a real looker, Eric.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — April 22, 2013 @ 7:16 pm - April 22, 2013

  88. Then you must be a real looker, Eric.

    Well, gee, look who is resorting to personal attacks now!

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 22, 2013 @ 8:05 pm - April 22, 2013

  89. Um, it was intended as a compliment.

    Unless, of course, you judge Eric’s intellect and perspective to be at low levels.

    But, that’s for you and your conscience to wrestle with, Peter H.

    Toodles

    And

    Regards,
    Vince S.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — April 22, 2013 @ 8:15 pm - April 22, 2013

  90. Just to tie up a couple of loose ends. First, at #37 I characterized the Tsarnaev brothers as having “no family already in the U.S.” when they came. I have since learned that, while accurate technically for the younger brother, it is misleading in implication. From CNN:

    A family originally from the Russian republic of Chechnya fled the brutal wars in their homeland in the 1990s. They moved to neighboring Russian republics before at last arriving in the United States.

    The youngest, Dzhokar, came first with his parents, according to his aunt, Maret Tsarnaev. The older son, Tamerlan, was initially left behind with his two sisters.

    Eventually, they were reunited [as the last 3 joined the first 3 in America]…

    In other words, while I still don’t believe that the younger brother had prior family in the U.S., it seems clear that the Tsarnaevs came as a family unit, and in search of freedom (having NO intention or notion that the 2 sons would later choose Islamism). I was wrong to imply that the brothers had come from Chechnya as sketchy characters without family ties.

    Next, at #75, Iggy said of his (among others’) earlier remarks that “no one has suggested that ILC is a racist…I certainly haven’t.” I disagree partly. I could agree completely, if Iggy were to phrase it as “no one has -claimed- that ILC is a racist… I certainly haven’t.” In other words, as of now I stand by the point that I made earlier at #45: that Iggy’s #42, while not claiming racism on my part, must have surely dangled the suggestion of it, if it were not for the -subsequent- context or clarification added by -later- words to void the suggestion.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 22, 2013 @ 11:54 pm - April 22, 2013

  91. Thanks for tying up those loose ends, ILC. Duly noted.

    As far as comment #42, I read Ignatius’ words to mean that you didn’t do yourself or the conservative cause any favors by linking to a racist website. And, in a upstanding stroke of debating, you corrected the matter by quoting reputable sources to drive your point home. And, I thank you for that.

    However, I didn’t find Ignatius’ words suggestive of you being a racist, which you are clearly not, nor have ever given any indication of being (to my knowledge) on GP or in person. Mike also testified to this. Ignatius seemed to be responding to Eric Olsen’s (My Sharia Moor) out-of-the-blue assertion that the racist card was played against you, which it was not. Ignatius was defending the notion that no one on this thread did such a thing. But, he has been clear about that all along, even in the face of being accused, along with others, suggesting the description.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 23, 2013 @ 2:53 am - April 23, 2013

  92. Vince, once again, you get it.Just like the expression “You are what you eat”, well, to a blogger, “You are what you link”. Just as we all learned in 6th grade book reports, citing a source links you to that source. Be careful where you click.I do find it odd that ILC is far more concerned about whether I have suggested racism than he is re. the actual content of the site he linked, a website devoted to a racist portrayal of black Americans as biologically inferior, violent, etc., let alone what the random left-wing reader might do. The link, for example, hasn’t been removed. I can only guess that the kind of garbage expressed there doesn’t bother him much, nor his being possibly associated with it. *shrug*

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2013 @ 11:10 am - April 23, 2013

  93. I didn’t find Ignatius’ words suggestive of you being a racist

    And, again, I did, until further words clarified the matter.

    you didn’t do yourself or the conservative cause any favors by linking to a racist website. And, in a upstanding stroke of debating, you corrected the matter by quoting reputable sources to drive your point home. And, I thank you for that.

    Translation: What I said was right all along, and you are glad that I said it in a new way so *now* you can agree. I appreciate the vote of confidence, but there is an issue here about cognitive method, an issue that I think is worth spelling out.

    We agree that racism is wrong, morally and factually. But, being wrong on issue X does not imply being wrong on issue Y, especially not if the claims about Y come with links to Internet sources that are accepted-in-practice by most people. A list of 57 black serial killers is a list of 57 black serial killers, if its links (those that still work) check out and regardless of who put it together.

    So part of recognizing truth, is recognizing facts even if someone awful says them. If a racist says “It’s 2:10 pm” – and you glance over their stuff and you see they’ve linked the Navy clock (say), and roughly near 2:10pm – then you say “OK”. You don’t say, as someone did in this thread, “prepare to read a bunch of racist garbage if you read what the racist said; I wouldn’t trust any information posted there.” The latter action was, quite simply, dishonest.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2013 @ 11:24 am - April 23, 2013

  94. (continued) I sometimes say that even Osama bin Ladin was right, twice a day. It is no endorsement of his crimes – NONE – to agree with him that (say) Britney Spears’ career was a sign of Western decadence. And, if he told me the sky was blue, I might check it but if it seemed basically true, I’d grant his point and move on.

    Just to pull a couple more random illustrations, of the point about cognitive process. It would NOT mean that I agreed in any way with OBL’s lies or fulminations.

    When Mao or Stalin happens to say something true, I may quote it. (Example: Mao, “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.”) Should I not? Does quoting it ‘associate’ me with them? Really?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2013 @ 11:42 am - April 23, 2013

  95. But, being wrong on issue X does not imply being wrong on issue Y, especially not if the claims about Y come with links to Internet sources that are accepted-in-practice by most people.

    and

    If a racist says “It’s 2:10 pm” – and you glance over their stuff and you see they’ve linked the Navy clock (say), and roughly near 2:10pm – then you say “OK”.

    Translation: Even Hitler could tell the correct time.But we’re not discussing whether a broken clock is correct twice/day, as in a T/F question. If I were researching the German banking system in the 1920s and were asking for information re. corruption cases involving Jewish bankers, would it make more sense to ask Hitler or a more objective source? This is what I meant when I wrote:

    Prepare to read a bunch of racist garbage if you read what the racist said; I wouldn’t trust any information posted there.

    ILC claims that I’m being ‘dishonest’; I merely think it’s being wise. I don’t trust information about black violent crime statistics (such as serial killings) when such information comes from a source whose apparent mission is to make blacks look as violent as possible in order to satisfy some racist urge.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2013 @ 11:57 am - April 23, 2013

  96. I should know better than to allow ILC to quote me. Correction:

    Others reading this, prepare to read a bunch of racist garbage if you click on the link ILC provided. You’ve been warned. I wouldn’t trust any information posted there.

    The above is what I actually wrote.

    [Jeff adds: Yes. For the record, the intent of my own comment was not to make an exact literal quote of Iggy, but rather, to make a meaningful paraphrase or near-quote that would flow grammatically into what I was saying. Had I intended an exact literal quote of Iggy, I would have indicated it by blockquoting. Still, people aren't mind-readers and I failed to clearly distinguish my intent, or what was my words, in that instance.]

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2013 @ 12:01 pm - April 23, 2013

  97. I do find it odd

    wow. Never even thought of that. Thanks for pointing that out. You’re so shmart! Oh, and comment #95 was articulated in a way I couldn’t ever imagine expressing. Thanks. Saves me the time of even responding.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — April 23, 2013 @ 12:06 pm - April 23, 2013

  98. Here is a link to the Mao quotation: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

    Am I ‘associated’ with him now? Trust me, there are other deeply hateful Commie quotations at that link; some even in the original Chinese.

    Here it is again: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

    Should right-thinking people reject the point now (that government, or political power, is a gun) – and presumably, me along with it – because I am doubly associated with communism, which murdered hundreds of million of people?

    I don’t trust information about black violent crime statistics (such as serial killings)

    But I wasn’t quoting **any** information from there, about black crime **statistics**. None.

    What I quoted was: A simple list of the names of some of the black serial killers. The list happened to be 57 long. After looking at a few of the supplied links, well some links didn’t work anymore, but the ones that did showed that the people named did indeed seem to be (1) black and (2) serial killers.

    So can we agree that a list of the names of some 57 black serial killers “is what it is”, a list of the names of some 57 black serial killers?

    I am curious to see just how deep you folks are willing to dig this particular rabbit hole.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2013 @ 12:17 pm - April 23, 2013

  99. But I wasn’t quoting **any** information from there, about black crime **statistics**. None.

    OK, remove the word ‘statistics’. Are we next going to argue the difference between ‘quoting’ and ‘linking’? How about the word ‘is’?

    I am curious to see just how deep you folks are willing to dig this particular rabbit hole.

    Translation: Please stop talking about this!! You’re making me look bad!!

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2013 @ 12:33 pm - April 23, 2013

  100. C’mon Iggy, I know you can dig your holes deeper than that. Keep going.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2013 @ 12:36 pm - April 23, 2013

  101. P.S. Not to help you out with tips, but the easy and logical thing would be if you said, “Yes, of course we can agree that a list of the names of some 57 black serial killers ‘is what it is’, a list of the names of some 57 black serial killers.” Then you could go on try to score some other point. ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2013 @ 12:43 pm - April 23, 2013

  102. Anyone can post a list on the internet of 57 people and call it a group of black serial killers. That doesn’t make it factual or true.

    And when that list isn’t fully backed up with links and some of those links that do exist are either dead or lead to questionable sources, and the author is of ill repute with an obvious agenda, then a rational person has every right and should be encouraged to ask, “Does this even pass the smell test?” Which is what was happening. Unfortunately, ILC you remained and may perceivably always remain unconvinced.

    I know what my motivations were discussing my skepticism towards black Peoria. And based on ignatius’ history of commenting at GP, I logically conclude ignatius was coming from a similar place. Just like, based on your history, I have never for one moment thougt or suggested that you are a racist, because you are not. I actually have not thought that about GP commenters in my years of readership save maybe one or two participants, despite being accused on several occassions of being a liberal whose knee jerk belief is that all republicans are racist.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — April 23, 2013 @ 1:01 pm - April 23, 2013

  103. Anyone can post a list on the internet of 57 people and call it a group of black serial killers. That doesn’t make it factual or true.

    Of course it doesn’t. I agree. But, actually looking over the list, and checking out some of the names (or the subset of links that still work, such as the Wikipedia ones) to see that they *are* black serial killers, does make it true functionally, or for purposes of conversation.

    Note that the following does *not prove* anything – but still, it’s worth noting in passing that if the list contains any mistaken names (names that aren’t black serial killers), you have yet to identify them.

    And when that list isn’t fully backed up

    I don’t have time to get into counting games here. I have to attend to a matter of business. Off the top of my head, I remember seeing something over 25 of the names having links; and of those, (1) many links didn’t work anymore but had been to local TV news stations, (2) of the ones that worked, many were Wikipedia and checked out as accurate (i.e., actual black serial killers). I also recall a few sketchy blogs being linked, but I believe that if someone were to do a count, the count would indeed be “a few” and suggest that you have been over-emphasizing their role.

    Once more, I re-focus on the point of the exercise, the point I was responding to:

    JohnAGJ said this:
    [Whites] still have the market cornered on serial killings

    …John’s implication was that non-white serial killers may exist, but not in number sufficient to upset a general contention that white people had “the market cornered on serial killings”. In response to that specific point, a list of non-white serial killers might make an impression, if it were long and documented. So I answered:

    Not according to this: [link given previously, with warning added later]

    So, even if only half (say roughly) of the names on the list are really black serial killers, John’s point is brought into some question. Which was, in the conversation at that time, my (only) purpose. And I would be surprised if the list weren’t accurate almost entirely. Again, sorry I don’t have time/interest to undertake a hand count.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2013 @ 1:28 pm - April 23, 2013

  104. All good points ILC.

    When I read “cornered the market,” I read that as greater than 50%. Though, I don’t know what kind of a figure John was imagining, he was arguing that serial killers fit a certain general profile.

    Perhaps I’m wrong, and whites do not encompass over half the statistics.

    But your contention seems to be that some operated under the assumption that black serial killers were proportionate (or less) to the general population, which you have shown is not the case.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — April 23, 2013 @ 2:02 pm - April 23, 2013

  105. OK – the interpretation of ‘cornered the market’ may be a question here.

    To me, the phrase means “much greater than your share”. So for example, if whites were something like 60% of the population, then (by that phrasing) they would have something like 90% of the serial killers. That’s the thing in my mind, that I was throwing a flag on.

    I believe that “race” is a false set of categories. So, my baseline expectation is that “race” will make no difference in most issues, after you correct for (say) poverty or other historical factors.

    Given that, I was surprised to see (in the other stuff I quoted at #71) that blacks have a disproportionately high percentage of serial killers. And I still suspect that the higher rate for blacks might vanish, if we corrected the statistics for a few other things. I’m only certain that whites don’t have the market “cornered”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2013 @ 2:11 pm - April 23, 2013

  106. John wrote

    Ok. We still have the market cornered on serial killings…

    I assumed that John assumes ‘we’ are white. I also assumed that John doesn’t mean there aren’t members of other races represented among the total number of serial killers. I responded:

    In absolute numbers, the largest number of serial killers are white. However, the number of black serial killers far exceeds the percentage of the overall black population. One of any race is too many.

    ILC then commented, linking to the racist website that includes a purported list of 57 serial killers, making the claim that the list counters John’s assertion (an assertion I interpreted as having been made possibly in jest, i.e. he wasn’t trying to offer a numerical truth):

    Not according to this:…

    For argument’s sake, let’s assume the list is a valid one. The existence of the list proves nothing except that black serial killers exist. It doesn’t address the “cornering the market” assertion one iota. Unless context is provided (such as the context I provided in my comment that blacks are overrepresented amongst all serial killers relative to their overall percentage of the population), then merely pointing to a list of 5, or 7, or 57, or 570 means squat.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2013 @ 4:59 pm - April 23, 2013

  107. Thank you for finally addressing my argument.

    (even if still missing the mark; I’ve explained already in several comments how I took John’s “market cornered” phrasing to imply a quite small number of non-white serial killers, against which idea, a list of 57 black serial killers should create some impression or provide at least an initial/partial kind of evidence.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2013 @ 5:33 pm - April 23, 2013

  108. In other words, ILC, you used really bad logic to try to counter John’s assertion, linking to a list from a racist website, a dubious list (because many of the links are dead, the site has a racist agenda, etc.), and all you did was merely reiterate something all of us already know: black serial killers exist. Fail.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2013 @ 5:44 pm - April 23, 2013

  109. Well Iggy, you certainly seem determined to characterize my comment that way, for whatever reasons of your own. I’m not about to lose any sleep over it. It has been fun, though. Good luck to you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2013 @ 5:50 pm - April 23, 2013

  110. Wikipedia offers this definition of cornering the market:

    to have the greatest market share in a particular industry without having a monopoly

    According to this definition, yes, white males of the aforementioned aged demographic do, as John asserted, “corner the market” on serial killing.

    ILC, you simply chose to interpret the term in a way it was not intended, even after John acknowledged that the non-white serial killer is far from an anomaly.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 23, 2013 @ 6:09 pm - April 23, 2013

  111. RVS, from Investopedia:

    Definition of ‘Corner A Market’
    To acquire enough shares of a particular security type, such as those of a firm in a niche industry, or to hold a significant commodity position to be able to manipulate its price. An investor needs deep pockets to be able to corner a market.

    It can also mean to accumulate a major share of economic activity in a particular area. A phone company that dominated 90% of the wireless market could be said to have cornered the market.

    Investopedia explains ‘Corner A Market’
    The Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulate and monitor the securities and commodities markets, and attempt to prevent and prosecute illegal trading behavior. Large institutions can often corner a market through legal means. A company that has cornered the market has a significant competitive advantage. However, any time a company has a large market share, it may be scrutinized by the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division – especially if competitors complain. Indeed, Microsoft faced such a fate because of its large share of the computer operating system market.

    Microsoft had something like a 90% share of personal computers, back when they were under heaviest scrutiny. 90% is also mentioned in a different example, above.

    But I don’t absolutely tie it to that number. When applied to other fields, ‘cornering the market’ is of course a metaphor. The key idea that I see in the metaphor is disproportionality: there is something excessive and disproportionate in your share, enough to give you excessive power, blame, etc.

    Thus, as I said earlier:

    …for example, if whites were something like 60% of the population, then (by that phrasing) they would have something like 90% [ed: number mentioned only coincidentally] of the serial killers. That’s the thing in my mind, that I was throwing a flag on.

    And, per the stuff I quoted at #71, whites have, if anything, a share of serial killers that is slightly less than the share of whites in the general population.

    P.S. I can’t find any comment in which “John acknowledged that the non-white serial killer is far from an anomaly.” He acknowledged, at most, only that some non-white serial killers exist. But that was never in dispute. At #28, John rattled off a few non-white serial killer names… before and after suggesting that the non-whites were, indeed, anomalies. The word ‘anomaly’ is closer in meaning to “something that exists in small numbers / small share”, than it is to “something that never exists.” John suggested that non-white serial killers, although they definitely existed (and he could name a few), they existed in numbers/share so small that whites would metaphorically “have the market cornered.” And that suggestion is not correct.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2013 @ 6:39 pm - April 23, 2013

  112. The key idea that I see in the metaphor is disproportionality: there is something excessive and disproportionate in your share, enough to give you far-outsized influence (or power, blame, etc.).

    In other words, context must be provided in order to make sense of a number such as, say, 57. (And even the number 57 in the context of this conversation is doubtful, per the website linked.) In other words, some kind of **statistics** (per proportionality or ratio or percentile) must be provided to show that such an allegation — whether a cornering of a market or refuting a cornering of that market — has any meaning whatsoever. Proving the existence of black serial killers was never in doubt and that’s all the linked list managed to do — barely.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2013 @ 7:01 pm - April 23, 2013

  113. ILC, the number is subjective. And, you chose to interpret John’s use of the term to suggest a number equal to or around 90. You made the assumption that he was suggesting minority (black, asian) serial killers were disproportionately less to the general population. No where in John’s comments supported the such. Can you provide an example please if this is incorrect? Or, else, why make the assumption?

    It’s a shame you didn’t ask him to qualify his use of the term. Rather, you assumed he was using it in a way he wasn’t, and didn’t give him any leeway or credit (when he actually earned it in comments he made before you provided the infamous link).

    Whites make up 78.1% of the population. If they possess 75% or even 66% of serial killers in their race, whites still “corner the market.” Their share is greater than all others, regardless of the myths some may believe about minority (black, Asian) serial killers. If there is a 7/10 chance of a serial killer being white, I would say those odds are, to quote John, “Pretty damn high.”

    But, you assumed something in John’s argument that didn’t exist (a belief in racial myths regarding serial killers), and provided a statistic from a horribly disreputable source. Whatever the case, it doesn’t make you a racist.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 23, 2013 @ 7:05 pm - April 23, 2013

  114. Whites make up 78.1%

    Nope. Wikipedia lists it as 72.4%.

    You made the assumption that [John] was suggesting minority (black, asian) serial killers were disproportionately less to the general population.

    Of course. I was crediting John (and I still credit him) with at least -attempting- a reasonable use of the metaphor, “have cornered the market”.

    If white serial killers are *only* in proportion to the general population – or less! – then there was no call to use the metaphor. Whatever cornering a market is, being under-represented in that ‘market’ isn’t it. I credited John with a more sensible and intelligent use of the metaphor, at least in his intent (but obviously not in his outcome), than you have.

    Based on whites being 72% of the population and a 7-in-10 likelihood of a given vote being a white vote, would you then say, “Whites have the market cornered on voting”? I know that, normally, you would not. (Although perhaps you might now, just to carry your position through.) You would, normally, understand and reject the implication of other groups’ voting rates somehow not being high enough.

    It’s a shame you didn’t ask him to qualify …

    You’re making this too complicated. Again: In a quick, brief form of conversation, John said:

    [Whites] still have the market cornered on serial killings

    And I said:

    Not according to this: [link given previously, with warning added later]

    That’s it. Or should have been. That you are still arguing and asking explanations of me, this much later, is amazing. I probably ought to show less courtesy here (i.e., stop answering); though, as mentioned earlier, I was curious to see how deep you guys wanted to dig this particular hole.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2013 @ 7:56 pm - April 23, 2013

  115. 2012 US Census Bureau site says: 78.1%

    Whose figure should we go with?

    John’s use of “cornering the market” had to do with the overall serial killer population. You bringing the racial disproportion element into the conversation does nothing to change that the vast majority of serial killers are white males, for now.

    It did get a racist blog a little extra traffic, though.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 23, 2013 @ 8:14 pm - April 23, 2013

  116. For the record, the intent of my own comment was not to make an exact literal quote of Iggy, but rather, to make a meaningful paraphrase or near-quote that would flow grammatically into what I was saying. Had I intended an exact literal quote of Iggy, I would have indicated it by blockquoting. Still, people aren’t mind-readers and I failed to clearly distinguish my intent, or what was my words, in that instance.

    Here’s the “paraphrase”:

    You don’t say, as someone did in this thread, “prepare to read a bunch of racist garbage if you read what the racist said; I wouldn’t trust any information posted there.” The latter action was, quite simply, dishonest.

    I call bullshit. You used quotations, stated that ‘…as someone did [said the following] in this thread…’ (meaning myself), inserted the odd phrase “…if you read what the racist said…” (Is ILC implying in his own made-up phrase that I’m calling him a racist, referring to ‘what he said’? Who is the racist?) and deleted the part that made it clear I was warning others that if they click the link, they’ll read racist garbage. Then he calls me a liar (“The latter action was, quite simply, dishonest.”). I’ve been above-board this entire thread. ILC, obviously, has not.

    [Jeff adds: In much the sense that you never called me a racist: no, I have not called you a liar. But you would seem determined to characterize it another way. I’m not about to lose any sleep over it. The discussion has been fun. Good luck to you.]

    Comment by Ignatius — April 23, 2013 @ 8:14 pm - April 23, 2013

  117. the vast majority of serial killers are white males, for now.

    Other than your superlative (what is a ‘vast’ majority? Has a standards body specified an official cutoff, or is it just thrown in for drama?), it was never in dispute. Just as the existence of non-white serial killers was never in dispute.

    It did get a racist blog a little extra traffic, though.

    I acknowledge that as a downside. On the other hand, “a little” is much the operative phrase… and to actually suppress a valid point because you disapprove the linkee’s other views or associations, can be a questionable practice. I suppose a middle ground could have been to link it more indirectly, e.g., provide the Google search.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2013 @ 8:40 pm - April 23, 2013

  118. Just for the record and on topic of what has elongated this thread passed 100 comments, a disreputable source was linked to make a substantive point. And, the error was corrected.

    However, what remains unaddressed are the implications of linking to disreputable sources and their undermining, fairly or unfairly, of one’s ultimate goals and beliefs.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 12:57 pm - April 24, 2013

  119. However, what remains unaddressed are the implications of linking to disreputable sources and their undermining, fairly or unfairly, of one’s ultimate goals and beliefs.

    I’ll remember that the next time some people link to MSNBC or HuffPo.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 24, 2013 @ 1:06 pm - April 24, 2013

  120. LOL :-)

    And RVS, I “addressed the implications” both indirectly (by reductio ad absurdum) and somewhat more directly, at comments 93, 94, 98. Look for the passage beginning “there is an issue here about cognitive method, an issue that I think is worth spelling out…”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2013 @ 1:19 pm - April 24, 2013

  121. No, ILC, you did not ever address how linking to such sites can harm the conservative message in the realm of public debate and mainstream perception.

    [Jeff adds: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.]

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 1:32 pm - April 24, 2013

  122. You can point to mirage and say it’s a lake, but that doesn’t make it a lake.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 2:02 pm - April 24, 2013

  123. No, ILC, you did not ever address how linking to such sites can harm the conservative message in the realm of public debate and mainstream perception.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 1:32 pm – April 24, 2013

    Actually, Vince Smetana, you demonstrated why that statement is fatuous.

    I could be wrong, but I thought the crux of Ignatius’ argument was that by extracting perhaps pertinent information from an irrational and deranged source, conservatives weaken their foundation, only because liberals will, fairly or unfairly so, always get the upper hand in such situations and will be handed the “advantage” of, rightly or wrongly, accusing the conservative movement as a whole “racist” and having it “stick.”

    Key points in that statement:

    1) Whether or not information is pertinent is irrelevant to liberals.

    2) Whether or not evidence is actually present is irrelevant to liberals.

    3) Liberals will ALWAYS accuse non-liberals of racism.

    4) Liberals will ALWAYS state that if they deem one conservative or non-liberal racist, that all conservatives/non-liberals are racist

    5) Liberals will always believe the accusations of another liberal that conservatives or non-liberals are racist.

    Thus, Vince Smetana, the point is clear: you will declare ILC a racist REGARDLESS of what he does, REGARDLESS of what he says, and REGARDLESS of what the evidence is.

    People like Ignatius still labor under the delusion that liberals like yourself are fair. You are not. You simply are liars who scream “conservative = racist” over and over and over again and demand that conservatives provide evidence, with you being the sole arbiter of validity, over and over and over again.

    You’ve pretty much gut-shot your argument. You are demanding that conservatives perform piety dances and penance that ultimately are meaningless because you will just accuse them of racism over and over and over again to force them to continue to dance for you.

    The short answer is that linking ANYTHING will “damage the conservative cause” in your bigoted mind, because you are mentally and morally incapable of accepting any conservative ideas or thoughts as being valid. You do nothing but repeat your Obama, who says anyone who doesn’t support gun confiscation wants to murder children. It is the classic tactic of an abuser, and it is now being called out for what it is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2013 @ 2:11 pm - April 24, 2013

  124. You can point to mirage and say it’s a lake, but that doesn’t make it a lake.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 2:02 pm – April 24, 2013

    But you and your fellow liberals CAN point to a conservative and claim that that person is guilty of being a racist until they prove they are innocent.

    And then when they present proof, you can say it’s from the “wrong” source, or that it isn’t good enough, etc.

    The game is very familiar to us. Your Obama accused Romney of being a murderer and demanded he prove otherwise. Your Obama accused Romney of being a tax cheat and demanded he prove otherwise. Your Obama claimed anyone who opposed gun confiscation wanted to kill children and demanded that they do what he said or be namecalled.

    People just have to say no. They have to recognize, Vince Smetana, that you are an abusive bigot who is trying to exploit their own sense of fairness to get your way.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2013 @ 2:15 pm - April 24, 2013

  125. ND30,
    Your words also remind me of a mirage: the length and support you provide appears substantive, integral and comprehensive on the surface, but is actually quite the opposite: empty, contradictory, and false. I look forward to hearing from one other person besides yourself to actually support with evidence the accusation you leveled against me personally of calling ILC a racist.

    P.S. I find it humorous that you address me by my full name as if you want to remind people of my identity, like I’m trying to hide from it. The truth is, my handle has been linking to the same blog for two years, regardless if I’m calling myself “Vince Smetana,” “Cinesnatch,” “Vince in Weho,” or some other incarnation stemming from my name and blog. The truth is, I’m not the one hiding. You are, “bravely” from your anonymous computer.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 2:32 pm - April 24, 2013

  126. I also look forward to ILC taking a stand against your accusation of me calling him a racist, when he knows it is not true and strives for consistency, especially in the context of me firmly establishing that he is in fact not a racist.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 2:35 pm - April 24, 2013

  127. [Jeff adds: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.]

    It would be nice of more people remembered, and applied some of these old adages. Many of them speak simply and concisely to universal and ageless truths.
    Whenever I hear (or read) the one you invoked above, ILC, I think of this: “You can lead the ignorant to knowledge, but you can’t make them think”.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 24, 2013 @ 2:35 pm - April 24, 2013

  128. Thus, Vince Smetana, the point is clear: you will declare ILC a racist REGARDLESS of what he does

    NDT: To be precise, RVS has not called me a racist here, and he never will. (I say “here” because I have no idea one way or the other, naturally, how he is going to tell the story to friends.) Neither has Iggy.

    But what they and many others (chiefly liberals) will do, is keep bringing up the word or the possibility. “Oh, we’re not accusing you.” “Oh, we haven’t said anything.” “No one has called you a racist.” But, by bringing the conversation back to racism, they keep an implication dangling out there, which is all they want (and all they have the guts to go for).

    John suggested that, though he does know of some non-white serial killers, whites should have a disproportionate share of them. That’s a myth. I don’t blame John. The myth has been repeated many times. Speaking quickly off the cuff, I responded -in effect-, “Hey, just to see more of the nonwhites that are out there, what about this list of 57 black serial killers?”

    The list happened to be the work of a racist. That doesn’t, by itself, make the information any less true. Or any more true, for that matter. The information still stands or falls on its merits. But neither RVS nor Iggy care, in any real way, about the information’s merits (if any).

    I mean, if they knew that it were untrue, they’d be very happy to throw it at me. So, on the level of argumentative tactics, they care. But neither is philosophically committed to the concept of objective truth.

    They have each implied vaguely that the information must be untrustworthy because of who it ‘associates’ to, but, as yet, not offered any proof of bad information. Iggy at one point simply misrepresented the list, telling people it would be “a bunch of racist garbage” if they clicked on it, rather than what it is, which is: somebody’s list of 57 names of black serial killers, with brief comments about what they did, and one gratuitous N-word thrown in, plus some links to back it up, although many of those are unfortunately broken.

    Their lack of commitment to objective truth – That’s what I believe you are reacting to. This whole threadline has been about them posturing; not about the truth.

    We get this rubbish about “linking to such sites can harm the conservative message” – No, actually; that’s just you guys, trying to keep the concept of racism dangled out there. You’re the only ones doing any harm (real or imagined), as you drag it on as long as you possibly can, digging your hole deeper and deeper.

    Long story short: It’s been interesting… and I gladly concede that RVS and Iggy have not, in fact, called me racist… and yet I remain unfooled.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2013 @ 3:04 pm - April 24, 2013

  129. That’s what I believe you are reacting to. This whole threadline has been about them posturing; not about the truth.

    Yup.

    Which they hilariously acknowledged by making it clear that they were not going to look at the information, just demagogue the source.

    And we see that constantly with Cinesnatch, who screams over and over again that any evidence presented is from “right wing sources” or “Fox News” and is thus not valid.

    The point is to tie conservatives up with constant piety dances by exploiting the fact that conservatives do and will check their sources. The hypocrisy is obvious when you see Cinesnatch here wailing that other people need to provide evidence for accusations against him, while he accuses conservatives of being racist until they prove otherwise. He can demand people back up their accusations, but he exempts himself.

    This is typical. Obama does it. Harry Reid does it. Nancy Pelosi does it. Liberals are Alinsky addicts who are constantly attempting to punish other people for having standards. They are nothing more than Hamas and Taliban who put missile launchers in schools and hospitals.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2013 @ 3:27 pm - April 24, 2013

  130. Meanwhile, ILC, the reason that they do it is best illustrated by this example.

    Respondents in The Hill Poll were asked to choose which of two approaches they would prefer on the budget, but the question’s phrasing included no cues as to which party advocated for which option.

    Presented in that way, 55 percent of likely voters opted for a plan that would slash $5 trillion in government spending, provide for no additional tax revenue and balance the budget within 10 years — in essence, the path recommended by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) last week.

    This was almost twice as many voters as opted for a proposal that would include $1 trillion in added tax revenue as well as $100 billion in infrastructure spending, and which would reduce the deficit without eradicating it.

    Only 28 percent of voters preferred this option, which reflects the proposal put forth by Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) last week. …….

    However, as soon as respondents heard the words “Republican” and “Democrat,” the picture changed drastically. A plurality of voters, 35 percent, said they trust the Democrats more on budgetary issues, while 30 percent said they trust the Republicans more. A full 34 percent said they trust neither party.

    This is why Barack Obama and his supporters like Vince Smetana constantly demagogue and scream that Republicans and conservatives are racists, tax cheats, liars, murderers, bigots, homophobes, etc.

    It is called killing a brand. Liberals cannot win on objective facts or rational evaluation. They can only win by demonizing their opponents. Their tactics, as we see here with Vince Smetana and Ignatius, are simply to brand conservatives, conservative thought, and anything of the sort as bad, sloppy, racist, etc. so that people will not be associated with it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2013 @ 3:41 pm - April 24, 2013

  131. (I say “here” because I have no idea one way or the other, naturally, how he is going to tell the story to friends.)

    This qualifier was irrelevant, as I do not discuss you outside of the GP circle, nor have I ever given any indication of such. So, that you go out of your way to be suggestive that I do speaks to other truths.

    And, in paragraph #2, you basically suggest that though we haven’t outright called you a racist, you leave the possibility of that we may actually believe you are, or are trying to suggest that you are. Yet, I concede your point about Black Peoria trying to illustrate an argument supported by your wikipedia source (black serial killers disproportionate to most other races). You are correct, that doesn’t make the “information any less true.”

    John suggested that, though he knows some non-white serial killers, whites should have a disproportionate share of them

    No, he suggested that whites have the majority of them. I.e. “cornered the market,” NOT disproportionately over-represented their race. You (falsely) inferred that, because you assumed John wasn’t aware that blacks and Asians were overrepresented in the serial killer population in the context of the general populace.

    But neither RVS nor Iggy care, in any real way, about the information’s merits (if any).

    Conjecture, and false.

    Iggy at one point simply misrepresented the list, telling people it would be “a bunch of racist garbage” if they clicked on it, rather than what it is, which is: somebody’s list of 57 names of black serial killers.

    It is both racist garbage and 57 names. And, when the AVERAGE PERSON clicks on it, all they are going to see is racist garbage, which, in effect, deflects from the greater truth that black serial killers are disproportionate to the general population. Or, do you believe the AVERAGE PERSON is going to magically become educated in that moment by the information, and disregard the word “n@gger” colored all over the rest of the blog? No, they’re going to see that the blog poster is a racist and are going to write him/her off. Or, do you disagree?

    Long story short: It’s been interesting… and I gladly concede that *you* have not, in fact, called me a racist… and yet I remain unfooled.

    Your post was addressed to ND30. Emphasis, mine. So, essentially, you’re conceding that ND30 didn’t call you a racist.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 3:51 pm - April 24, 2013

  132. RVS – I caught/fixed that last bit myself, already.

    By “myself, already”, I mean “a few minutes after I posted my comment, and before seeing your comment.” But thanks.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2013 @ 3:57 pm - April 24, 2013

  133. ILC – I saw that, after I posted my long comment. Wish I could also correct my grammatical mistakes like that. I recognize I make my disproportionate share to the general GP community.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 4:00 pm - April 24, 2013

  134. No, he suggested that whites have the majority of them. I.e. “cornered the market,” NOT disproportionately over-represented their race.

    Which is rubbish, already dealt with. But heck, let’s go over it a final time.

    - The phrase “corner” the market refers to getting an outsized share of some market, outsized enough to confer effective power over that market; often (though not always) a monopoly or near-monopoly.
    - Everyone who actually works in markets knows this, though perhaps you don’t wish to.
    - When translating the phrase to other fields as a metaphor, the idea of “outsized, disproportionate, perhaps a monopoly or near-monopoly” is retained. Otherwise there would be no point to the metaphor.
    - Example: Though whites make up over 70% of the vote, you would never, for one second, say that whites had “cornered the market” on voting. You would only say it if it were true that whites voted disproportionately.
    - Another example: Though whites make up over 70% of the U.S. population, you would never say that whites had “cornered the market” on living.

    You’re right that I can’t be 100% sure of what John had in mind. NEITHER CAN YOU. And the simple fact is, I credit John with at least having -tried- to use the metaphor accurately. You don’t. You assume John used the metaphor wrongly, thus discrediting John.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2013 @ 4:11 pm - April 24, 2013

  135. Wish I could also correct my grammatical mistakes

    I don’t know why GP doesn’t allow it. (I mean that I really don’t know. Is it a blog software limitation? I don’t know.)

    I’ve seen other sites allow people to edit comments for, say, 10 minutes after posting. I *try* (not promising 100% perfection) to restrict myself to that. At a point soon after posting, the comment does need to be ‘frozen’ because people have started responding to it. That’s the kind of thing, anyway, that I would like to see on GP for everybody.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2013 @ 4:23 pm - April 24, 2013

  136. The phrase “corner” the market refers to getting an outsized share of some market … Though whites make up over 70% of the vote, you would never, for one second, say that whites had “cornered the market” on voting. You would only say it if it were true that whites voted disproportionately.

    While I don’t entirely agree with your third point, you are (mostly) correct about the first four. Keep in mind, when one has a monopoly, they are no longer cornering the market. They are monopolizing the market. The difference is that instead of having an obvious advantage over the competition, they have no competition and own the market. The corner disappears and they become the market.

    - Another example: Though whites make up over 70% of the U.S. population, you would never say that whites had “cornered the market” on living.

    Would I even say it if they made up over 95% of the population? How does a race corner the market on living?

    You assume John used the metaphor wrongly, thus discrediting John.

    He used the metaphor in a way that I agreed with, namely, that whites made up the obvious majority of serial killers, even though they were well-represented (over, under, or otherwise) in an assortment of minorities.

    Then, there’s this:

    It is both racist garbage and 57 names. And, when the AVERAGE PERSON clicks on it, all they are going to see is racist garbage, which, in effect, deflects from the greater truth that black serial killers are disproportionate to the general population. Or, do you believe the AVERAGE PERSON is going to magically become educated in that moment by the information, and disregard the word “n@gger” colored all over the rest of the blog? No, they’re going to see that the blog poster is a racist and are going to write him/her off. Or, do you disagree?

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 4:44 pm - April 24, 2013

  137. Iggy at one point simply misrepresented the list, telling people it would be “a bunch of racist garbage” if they clicked on it…

    Here’s what I wrote:

    Others reading this, prepare to read a bunch of racist garbage if you click on the link ILC provided. You’ve been warned. I wouldn’t trust any information posted there.

    The list is not a list by itself on a web page. It’s surrounded by a lot of other information, just as most web pages. If you click on the link ILC provided, you’ll see the n-word used liberally, racist messages, racist postings, racist comments, links, etc. In other words, racist garbage.The implication that Vince and/or I are implying ILC is a racist is obviously untrue to any sane person who bothers to read through the thread. ILC keeps insisting the implication is being made, I suspect as a distraction away from the fact that he, in his zeal to appear a smart guy and refute John’s assertion re. whites cornering the market, he tried to use an integer to refute an implied ratio. (An idiotic thing to do.) ILC was very foolish and has only appeared more so by digging in his heels, distracting, calling me dishonest, arguing over words used, trying to invoke an assumed intellect by throwing in ‘cognitive method’, etc., etc. — all because his logic is terrible and Vince and I pointed it out in a public forum.I don’t know Vince except from a few postings here and there and at no point during this exchange have I suspected that he’s been anything but above-board. And believe me, if I intend to call someone a racist, there will be no mistaking my intent, nor will there be any implication.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 24, 2013 @ 4:46 pm - April 24, 2013

  138. trying to invoke an assumed intellect by throwing in ‘cognitive method’……

    Comment by Ignatius — April 24, 2013 @ 4:46 pm – April 24, 2013

    Which means…….what, exactly?
    I’ve been reading ILC’s comments for, perhaps, 1-2 years now and his intellect is firmly established, never mind ‘assumed’.
    I’ve got say, though, that the bob-owens.com link, and it’s subsequent link to Mother Jones (well left of center, btw) were sufficient to cite the relevant data.
    Not trying to speak for you here, ILC….you don’t need anyone for that.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 24, 2013 @ 5:11 pm - April 24, 2013

  139. trying to invoke an assumed intellect by throwing in ‘cognitive method’……

    Comment by Ignatius — April 24, 2013 @ 4:46 pm – April 24, 2013

    Which means…….what, exactly?
    I’ve been reading ILC’s comments for, perhaps, 1-2 years now and his intellect is firmly established, never mind ‘assumed’.
    I’ve got say, though, that the bob-owens.com link, and it’s subsequent link to Mother Jones (well left of center, btw) were sufficient to cite the relevant data.
    Not trying to speak for you here, ILC….you don’t need anyone for that.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 24, 2013 @ 5:11 pm - April 24, 2013

  140. Oooops!

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 24, 2013 @ 5:11 pm - April 24, 2013

  141. Which means…….what, exactly?

    What I mean is that ILC is attempting to frame his “argument” in scientific terms (pertaining to, for example, how a person recognizes and processes data, procedural memory vs. semantic memory, etc.) in order to give the appearance that he knows what he’s discussing. Since I’ve pointed out his obvious logical fallacy (which by now should be obvious even to him), he’s pulling out a term whose definition I doubt he even knows.

    I’ve been reading ILC’s comments for, perhaps, 1-2 years now and his intellect is firmly established, never mind ‘assumed’.

    To you, perhaps.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 24, 2013 @ 5:24 pm - April 24, 2013

  142. Not one person on this thread has challenged the notion that blacks make up 13% of the general US population, but 16% of its serial killers (as well as the corresponding Asian statistics).

    Yet, every time someone brings up the perception of utilizing a source like Black Peoria, ILC feels compelled defend an imagined challenge to the disproportion.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 5:34 pm - April 24, 2013

  143. To you, perhaps.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 24, 2013 @ 5:24 pm – April 24, 2013

    I know it’s safe to say that his intellect is well established in the minds of the vast majority of people who have read his comments and posts. That you don’t (or claim not to) see it is a deficiency on your part, not his.
    Perhaps it would become more plain to you if you weren’t so painfully wedded to getting the rest of us to see YOU as this thread’s intellectual giant (you’ve made some good points, but IMO you’re hung up on both the ‘racist’ and ‘proportion’ bits).

    ….he’s pulling out a term whose definition I doubt he even knows.

    But you do, being as well educated and erudite as you so clearly are.
    Maybe you could instruct him, and the rest of us as well, on it’s proper application.

    The fact is, the value of your stock took a nosedive when you paused (twice now, by my count) to leave laudatory comments about….well, you know.

    Have you considered that the ‘mass shooter’ argument isn’t very revealing to begin with?
    If the topic were simply ‘handgun crimes’ (by race of offender), this exhausting dissertation need not have happened.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 24, 2013 @ 5:44 pm - April 24, 2013

  144. Re: My #143.
    Change ‘handgun’ to ‘firearm’.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 24, 2013 @ 5:51 pm - April 24, 2013

  145. Ignatius:
    Forgive my snark at #143.

    You’re not suggesting that ILC is a buffoon, are you?

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 24, 2013 @ 5:54 pm - April 24, 2013

  146. jman, thanks for the compliments. Is it my imagination, or are Iggy’s comments now, in essence, shrieking “ILC is a big dummy”?

    LOL :-)

    The list is not a list by itself on a web page.

    Like all blog posts, it dominates the page that it’s on. You’re right, there are some links to the side. But people have been warned now, right?

    calling me dishonest

    Fact: At NO point in this thread have I called you, Iggy, dishonest. In much the same way that at no point have you called me, ILC, racist.

    Based on your pattern, many of us can guess what you will want to do next. You’ll want to attempt to claim that because I called -some of your words about the page- a misrepresentation of it, or a dishonest action, then I was claiming or implying that you are dishonest. Was I? By your own standards of logic, expressed/applied in this thread, I clearly was not claiming it. As to whether I was implying it: I hereby state explicitly that under no circumstances was I implying it or meaning to imply it. I spoke of that one comment/action, and implied/imply nothing beyond it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2013 @ 6:08 pm - April 24, 2013

  147. jman, thanks for the compliments. Is it my imagination, or are Iggy’s comments now, in essence, shrieking “ILC is a big dummy”?

    1. You’re welcome!
    2. It sure does seem that way, but that’s why I asked at #145….to be sure.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 24, 2013 @ 6:11 pm - April 24, 2013

  148. Is it my imagination, or are Iggy’s comments now, in essence, shrieking “ILC is a big dummy”?

    Nah. I’m not shrieking. I’m using measured tones.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 24, 2013 @ 6:17 pm - April 24, 2013

  149. Well, ILC, remember – if it’s true, it cannot possibly be racist. That’s just an undeniable fact of life.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 24, 2013 @ 7:04 pm - April 24, 2013

  150. He used the metaphor in a way that I agreed with…

    Nope. Wrong answer.

    First of all, RVS, you continue to misunderstand the metaphor. Whatever cornering a market may be, being under-represented in the ‘market’ can never be it. Never.

    Moreover, you have forgotten the context of John’s remark. I’ll remind you. First, John said:

    28. …If this were a serial killing or a mass shooting, what are the odds based on previous incidents of the perpetrator(s) being a white male within a particular age range? Pretty damn high. Does this mean that all serial killings and mass shootings are done by white males? No. See Wayne Williams, Aileen Wuornos, Seung-Hui Cho, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, among others, for example. Yet the fact still remains that for serial killings and mass shootings the perps are usually white males…

    In response to that specifically (I blockquoted John), I said:

    37. …No, JohnAGJ. That’s a myth. You yourself rattled off a bunch of non-white examples, but the question would be, do the overall statistics show a greater likelihood of white shooters? Bob Owens says no, or at least that it’s significantly disputed…

    Note: ‘Likelihood’ is, here, tied to the word ‘statistics’, as in ‘statistical likelihood’ or probability rate. Which in turn incorporates, or rests on, the concept of proportion-to-population. John has not yet made the ‘cornered’ remark, but he HAS already been reminded, by me, to consider those concepts.

    In response to my remark specifically (John blockquoted me), John said:

    38. …Ok. We still have the market cornered on serial killings so I guess we can rest on our laurels there. ;)

    So yes, I do know what John had in mind. He meant whites being over-represented, because he was specifically answering a remark of mine, on that very topic. Either that, or he misspoke. If he wants say now that he misspoke, that’s fine. But unless he does, or with the words as given, I’m in a position to interpret them… you aren’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2013 @ 7:09 pm - April 24, 2013

  151. ILC, John agreed with you that some minorities were over-represented in direct proportion to the general populace. He then went on to reaffirm that whites still commit most of the serial murders in the U.S. And they do.

    The argument was never about whites being over/underrepresented for U.S. serial killings in respect to the general populace. The argument has been about whites committing most of the murders. And they do. John was making a point about racial profiling. Not the likelihood that a white man might be a serial killer in relation to a black man. But, the likelihood that a serial killer would be white. Plain and simple. You keep turning it into something that it’s not, because, why, I don’t know. You hate being wrong? You can’t let things go when you’re wrong? You feel like a buffoon for linking to an embarrassingly racist website and now you’re doubling down? I have no f*cking clue.

    If someone eats 70% or more of a pie, they have eaten *most* of the pie. They’ve cornered the market on that pie. If someone asks 10 guys out on a date and seven of them say yes, they have been successful *most* of the time. They’ve cornered their market on the dating scene.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 9:33 pm - April 24, 2013

  152. As far as racial profiling goes, yes, *most* serial killers are male, of a certain age group 18 – 48, and white.

    Are they likelier to be male than white? Yes.
    Are they likelier to be 18 – 48, than white? Yes.
    Are most serial killers still white? Yes.

    Obviously, there isn’t one set value for “most.”

    The chances of a serial killer being male and 18 – 48 are higher than being white. The chances of a serial killer being white are still high. They may not be as high as being male or 18 – 48, but they are high enough that it plays a role in effective racial profiling.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 9:40 pm - April 24, 2013

  153. The argument was never about whites being over/underrepresented for U.S. serial killings in respect to the general populace.

    Nope, it was always about that. All along the way.

    The argument has been about whites committing most of the murders.

    Nope, it was never about that. That whites, being a numerical majority of the population, would thus probably be a numerical majority of serial killers, was never in dispute.

    Let me say that again: NEVER. REMOTELY. IN. DISPUTE.

    John was making a point about racial profiling…the likelihood that a serial killer would be white.

    Think with me, now. Try really hard.

    If it were true that whites are under-represented (in proportion to population) as serial killers, **or evenly represented** (in proportion to population) as serial killers, **then there could be no possible value to profiling the demographic ‘white’** as serial killers. The very point and essence of profiling is to look for characteristics that are statistically **over**-represented. Otherwise: No point. No value. You WOULD NOT profile, if you were not looking for characteristics that are over-represented.

    Therefore John, in making a good point in favor of profiling, would **inherently have to be** talking about over-representation. But for confirming evidence of that, let’s turn to John’s own further words on the matter:

    66. … If you’d like, I’ll retract every single example I gave of crimes committed where whites are supposedly the usual perpetrators. I have no wish or see little point in debating those examples anyways. So find something that each one of you collectively or individually agree that whites ARE the usual perps…

    “The usual perps”… what could that phrase mean? I mean, honestly? If John were only talking about crimes where whites are a simple numerical majority, then no one can give him a good answer, because just on statistical probability, whites should be a simple numerical majority in almost every type of crime there is[1]. John asked, rather, for examples of those few, those unusual, types of crimes where whites would be represented **more than usual**, for some reason.

    Really, RVS, if you can’t grasp that point and concede it, you’ve got problems.

    ([1] Maybe not in, say, categories like “Islamic honor killings” or something. But those categories should be quite rare.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2013 @ 10:00 pm - April 24, 2013

  154. And, ILC, please answer this question directly: Do conservatives undermine their message and make themselves vulnerable to, fair or unfair, character attacks when they link to disreputable, racist websites to provide information they can get the same info more reputable sources?

    And, why do you keep defending your link to Black Peoria? Why not just say, “Hey, the wikipedia link drives my point home that blacks disproportionately commit serial killings in relation to the general populace and there is an existing bias where a lot of people don’t know that. And, while Black Peoria provides some pertinent information, one can find the same info elsewhere. And, I’d prefer not to be associated to that site. The blogger has an agenda and racist streak I’d rather distance myself from.”

    I’ve never read Mein Kampf. But, IF Hitler made some valid, factual points in that book (I have no idea if he did) about economy, socialization, etc, that other more reputable sources provide, what is the point in referencing Mein Kampf over the other sources, other than to say, “Oh, Hitler knew that too; he even wrote about it”? Is it really integral to the conversation? Is it really important that we know that, oh, Black Peoria was on to this too. They were WAY ahead of the curve on this. So what? An ugly, racist website happened to LUCK OUT and be on to something that was part of THEIR original agenda: to make some kind of case that they think blacks are evil and inferior. Do you really think the origins of the Mother Jones article stemmed from Black Peoria? ‘Who f*cking cares about Black Peoria? Leave them in the dust.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 10:09 pm - April 24, 2013

  155. Do conservatives undermine their message and make themselves vulnerable to, fair or unfair, character attacks when they link to disreputable, racist websites to provide information they can get the same info more reputable sources?

    They don’t, in the sense of NDT’s point: It is the Left who is the bad actor there. The message may well end up being undermined, **but it was not conservatives who did the undermining**. Your question’s phrasing asks who actually does the undermining. Answer: the Left does.

    To someone who is philosophically committed to objective reality, only the actual truth/falsehood of some information set counts; concerns about guilt-by-association are imposed by external, bad actors, and dealt with reluctantly. So, in addition to there being an issue here about cognitive method and about objective reality, there is a very real issue about correct placement of moral responsibility.

    And, why do you keep defending your link to Black Peoria?

    But I don’t defend it. I do nothing more than **point out the facts about what it is**: somebody’s list of 57 black serial killers. and maybe it’s right, or maybe it’s wrong in places, or maybe all the information is wrong (though I doubt that). That’s not a defense, it’s only pointing out what we know or don’t know (at this point).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2013 @ 10:21 pm - April 24, 2013

  156. (continued) You’re quite welcome to attack the list. But attacking it would consist of your disproving the information on it: for example, your finding 3 (let’s say) of the names on the list that are actually white serial killers, or not serial killers at all.

    I note with interest that, in the course of 100+ comments, you have yet to do so even once.

    As I said before: Your concern is not with the truth or falsity of a given information set; your concern is with posturing. Yes, that makes you and I quite different, in our values and approach to life.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2013 @ 10:23 pm - April 24, 2013

  157. ILC, Do I have this right?

    If you have have a crazy guy standing in rags, shouting, “There are 57 N@ggers who are serial killers,” and rattles off a bunch of names (which are all factual and true), we should consider him the same way we would consider a nicely dressed man who articulately says, “Contrary to popular belief, blacks are actually overrepresented statistically in serial killers and, in fact, it’s underreported by the media,” and supplies several exhibits of evidence.

    And, in fact, it’s “liberalism” to deliberately choose to listen to the latter over the former.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 10:34 pm - April 24, 2013

  158. RVS, another bad-faith question there. You have no intention of even understanding my answer (much less accepting it).

    But, for what I came to say. Maybe I’m spending a few more minutes on this than I should, but I was intrigued by the charge that I have been somehow ‘defending’ the 57 list.

    Scanning my comments. Nope. There is not a single instance, not one, of my defending it. There are instances of my *pointing out what it is* (#43, 93, 98, 101, 128). Or *describing what happens to be on it* (#48, 60, 103, 146).

    That some opponent(s) should distort simple descriptive language into ‘defending’ it (for which I would then be faulted), points to the witch-hunt atmosphere of these modern times. The type of mentality that is involved makes me a little frightened for the future of humanity.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2013 @ 11:40 pm - April 24, 2013

  159. And, why do you keep defending your link to Black Peoria? Why not just say, “Hey, the wikipedia link drives my point home that blacks disproportionately commit serial killings in relation to the general populace and there is an existing bias where a lot of people don’t know that. And, while Black Peoria provides some pertinent information, one can find the same info elsewhere. And, I’d prefer not to be associated to that site. The blogger has an agenda and racist streak I’d rather distance myself from.”

    Actually, ILC already said that.

    And you ignored it.

    Which means, Vince Smetana, that your concern is not with what ILC said; it is with forcing ILC to do piety dances.

    Which is again why your blathering about “undermining foundations” is nothing more than malicious and manipulative lying. You are not morally or mentally capable of acknowledging conservatives’ statements as being in good faith, nor do you have any intention of doing so; that is why you scream and rant and demand that ILC do more, more, more to prove that he is not a racist.

    As ILC has pointed out, you are arguing in bad faith. Therefore, you and your supporters like Ignatius can be ignored — or, even better, mocked as the bigots and hatemongers that you are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2013 @ 11:46 pm - April 24, 2013

  160. That some opponent(s) should distort simple descriptive language into ‘defending’ it (for which I would then be faulted), points to the witch-hunt atmosphere of these modern times. The type of mentality that is involved makes me a little frightened for the future of humanity.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2013 @ 11:40 pm – April 24, 2013

    Of course, ILC.

    Vince Smetana’s point here is to browbeat you into silence by calling you a racist and insisting that you defend racism.

    There is nothing that you can say that the bigot Vince Smetana will accept. He and his fellow liberal bigots will not stop calling you a racist. Ever. They will scream and scream and scream that you are one for the sole purpose of smearing and discrediting you so that no one will listen to what you have to say.

    Just realize that this is the reality. Vince Smetana and his friends like Ignatius have no moral boundaries or standards other than sheer raw power lust. The only thing they “respect” is people who punch back twice as hard — and when you do, they start caterwauling and screaming about how “mean” and “unfair” you are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2013 @ 11:51 pm - April 24, 2013

  161. The point that 16% of blacks make up the total group of serial killers, but only 13% of the population has been noted by myself much earlier in the thread. That very bit of data renders the 57 list insignificant on every level.

    In post #157, I would go to the latter. So would you. Yet, you refuse to say, “I offered a legitimate source that proves my point. I initially made a mistake by linking to Black Peoria. Forget him. He’s trash. He presents a compelling list of names if you’re interested in a long list of specific black serial killers and want to do research on that matter. There’s also another racist website that does the same thing called MajorityRights.com. There’s yet even another racist website that gives you a longer list than Black Peoria called WhiteReference.blogspot. ViolenceAgainstWhites.wordpress even has a video. DO YOU SEE A PATTERN? It seems white supremacists have a vested interest in this matter. Wonder why. But, hey, my original point was that blacks are 13% of the general populace, but 16% of its serial killers. And that piont was made by wikipedia, not Black Peoria. BP only offered a list out of any context.”

    Oh, but, wait, here’s where it gets interesting, ILC. You know that Black Peoria list YOU linked? Do you even think it’s original content? It’s not! It’s plagiarized from anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-liberal site VNN Forum, a message board system that asks such honest, relevant, and hard-hitting questions like “Are jews human?” (!!! Really ???) So, you not only linked to a racist website to make a point that you ended up making MORE CLEARLY and IN CONTEXT with a LEGITIMATE SOURCE, it was second-hand material to boot.

    I wish you would just distance yourself for that disgusting tripe. But, knowing you, you’re going to double-down, again, and have the last word. That’s your MO and I’ve grown accustomed. Well, congratulations, ILC, this has been a spirited discussion. I made my points as best as I could, in part, because you drew them out of me. I also learned from you, as well as Ignatius and others in this thread. Thank you.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 24, 2013 @ 11:55 pm - April 24, 2013

  162. Actually, ILC already said that. And you ignored it.

    Indeed I did, NDT. And indeed he did.

    RVS, here’s the reminder for you. Here’s what I said very near the beginning of this:

    41. P.S. To make my view clear: As Iggy said, “One of any race is too many.” Race is-or-should-be irrelevant.

    48. [Jeff adds: The article lists 57 serial killers, claimed to be black, and says little else. The article in turn has many links to news articles, Wikipedia, etc. documenting many of the claims. In that regard, informational value is present. As I have already suggested, but now make explicit in order to satisfy the demands of politically-correct pedantry: I do not endorse, and indeed I regard as abhorrent, the article's single and unnecessary use of the N-word, as well as any other negative words that may occur anywhere else on the hosting site. I note with satifaction that at least 2 of the article's commenters already took the same position.]

    And NDT is right. That did not satisfy you. Instead, you went hole-digging with Iggy, claiming that I was defending something that I wasn’t (go back to #158 for expansion of that point).

    I actually don’t have a problem, with some of the words you want me to say. But you didn’t get that all right, either. Example:

    Hey, the wikipedia link drives my point home that blacks disproportionately commit serial killings…

    Except that was never “my” point. To the contrary, I suspect that the higher rate for blacks will vanish, once the statistics are properly adjusted. And I told you that already, at comment #105.

    “My” point, as regards serial killers, was simply that it was probably not accurate for John to have tagged whites as having a disproportionate share. Of course, you didn’t get that right either: You can’t even bring yourself to admit the real meaning of “corner the market”, or that John was in fact referring to whites’ alleged disproportionate share.

    Finally, for me, the point in the last 100+ comments has been your and Iggy’s inability even to address the names on the list of 57 black serial killers in a rational way.

    So, making one key adjustment and another key addition, you may now consider me to have said the following:

    Hey, the wikipedia link drives my point home that whites DON’T disproportionately commit serial killings in relation to the general populace and there is an existing bias where a lot of people don’t know that. And, while Black Peoria provides some pertinent information, one can find the same info elsewhere. And, I’d prefer not to be associated to that site. The blogger has an agenda and racist streak I’d rather distance myself from. But you know what? There is a real difference between people who are able to handle the Black Peoria thing rationally, and those who aren’t; some people will freak out and posture at length because it was linked, which is just weird.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 12:43 am - April 25, 2013

  163. So, if two minority groups have a ratio of serial killers over-represented and disproportionate to the general population, one can never claim the majority group has cornered the market? If Majority Group A has 98% of the general population, but only 96% of the serial killer population, and Minority Groups B & C have 2% of the general population combined, but 4% of the serial killer population, Majority Group A has not cornered the market on serial killers.

    Do have this correct?

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 1:04 am - April 25, 2013

  164. And, just so we’re on the same page, what is the significance of the list of 57 names (I haven’t gone through the list, so, for argument’s sake and because you seem to want me to, I’m going to assume that they are all legitimate and check out), other than being a list of names, with no control group of corresponding lists based on different races, no context of dates, no way to extract solid percentages to drive home the point that black are overrepresented disproportionately, etc?

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 1:10 am - April 25, 2013

  165. I do believe I understand you when you say,

    “a male is more likely to be a serial killer than a female.”

    “a person between the ages of 18 – 48 is more likely to be a serial killer than someone who falls outside of that group.”

    And, if you have, let’s say 1,000 people: 130 black, 870 white (to keep things simple). And, God help us, 100 of them are serial killers at large: 16 black, 84 white.

    General Population
    1.6% of the GP are black serial killers.
    8.4% of the GP are white serial killers.

    Racial Groups
    12.3% of black man are serial killers.
    9.6% of white men are serial killers.

    Serial Killer Population
    16% of serial killers are black.
    84% of serial killers are white.

    A serial-killer murder has taken place. Police are looking for a male between 18 – 48. The perp has appropriated the Son of Sam sign and has engaged in a series of copycat killings. Race is insignificant. They could be black or white. There is not statistical proof that we’re looking for anyone of a particular race.

    Another murder takes place. Police think it’s another serial killer. The murder has taken place in Compton. A string of black prostitute have been raped and murdered. Race is insignificant. They could be black or white. There is not statistical proof that we’re looking for anyone of a particular race.

    Another serial killer murder has taken place. The killer’s signature is leaving behind mini-replicas of the golden plates John Smith found hundreds of years ago on the bodies of his victims. Race is insignificant. They could be black or white. There is not statistical proof that we’re looking for anyone of a particular race.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 1:41 am - April 25, 2013

  166. 163 – Let me try to say it another way. To corner a market successfully, you must become an expert in it. Thus, along with implications of excessive or near-monopoly power, the phrase implies specialization. Is serial killing a specialty of your group A? No. In your example i.e. with the numbers you provided, an individual from group B or C has at least double the chance of being a serial killer as a member of group A. So, B/C are your market experts.

    Let me try it yet another way. Japan’s races are 98.5% Japanese, 1.5% Other. Would any intelligent Japanese say “We’ve cornered the market in serial killing?” Not unless he meant that Other’s serial killers were virtually nonexistent (just a handful of names). He wouldn’t say it, if in fact (and if the fact were known, that) the Other race had serial killers at double the rate of the Japanese.

    164 – Relatively little significance. And, contra Iggy’s tortured fulminations, I have never once claimed otherwise. I’ve been upfront about saying that the 57 list’s significance is hardly more than conversational. Examples:

    40. We still have the market cornered on serial killings…Not according to this…

    55. John’s implication was that non-white serial killers may exist, but not in number sufficient to upset a general contention that white people had “the market cornered on serial killings”. In response to that specific point, a list of non-white serial killers might make an impression…

    71. Reminder: I wouldn’t normally (or don’t really) care about this, EXCEPT that (1) I was misinformed in this thread that whites had “the market cornered” on serial killings…

    103. So, even if only half (say roughly) of the names on the list are really black serial killers, John’s point is brought into some question. Which was, in the conversation at that time, my (only) purpose.

    107. I took John’s “market cornered” phrasing to imply a quite small number of non-white serial killers, against which idea, a list of 57 black serial killers should create some impression or provide at least an initial/partial kind of evidence.

    114. Again: In a quick, brief form of conversation, John said “[Whites] still have the market cornered on serial killings”, and I said “Not according to this…”

    “Partial” significance for a “quick, brief” “conversation”… Get it?

    So then, why the long discussion? I’ve been upfront about that too, stating my larger points as I went along:

    57. NDT, I read Iggy’s contention more along the lines that we’re supposed to care if leftists misunderstand us….And [I say] we shouldn’t care.

    65. I would say that Iggy is trying to make an irrational demand of rational people (us), that we join his pussyfooting around people who are irrational bigots.

    93. there is an issue here about cognitive method, an issue that I think is worth spelling out….part of recognizing truth, is recognizing facts even if someone awful says them.

    98. So can we agree that a list of the names of some 57 black serial killers “is what it is”, a list of the names of some 57 black serial killers? I am curious to see just how deep you folks are willing to dig this particular rabbit hole. [of trying to not agree to that]

    117. to actually suppress a valid point because you disapprove the linkee’s other views or associations, can be a questionable practice.

    128. what [liberals] will do, is keep bringing up the word or the possibility [of racism]. “Oh, we’re not accusing you.” “Oh, we haven’t said anything.” “No one has called you a racist.” But, by bringing the conversation back to racism, they keep an implication dangling out there… I remain unfooled.

    155. To someone who is philosophically committed to objective reality, only the actual truth/falsehood of some information set counts; concerns about guilt-by-association are imposed by external, bad actors, and dealt with reluctantly. So, in addition to there being an issue here about cognitive method and about objective reality, there is a very real issue about correct placement of moral responsibility.

    Yes, I act on such motives. As you would know, if you really knew my “MO”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 2:16 am - April 25, 2013

  167. Final point:

    “You are what you eat”, well, to a blogger, “You are what you link”…citing a source links you to that source.

    That IS advocacy of guilt-by-association. Period.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 2:40 am - April 25, 2013

  168. Okay, ILC. Thank you for taking the time. That was a lot of copying/pasting. You have been very clear about distancing yourself from Black Peoria while citing it as an informative resource. But, I do believe Ignatius’ point to originally not be about suggesting you were guilty by association, but how the gay left-wing blogs might do so, because they tend to operate that way in large numbers. While this is a disingenuous practice and the general public are free to choose how they analyze the information that’s dispersed, there is no question that falsehoods can easily spread and once they catch, there’s no stopping the damage. It sounds like you’re not concerned with that type of damage you might unfairly incur and that truth will always prevail. I guess I’m more cynical than that, especially in the context of mistruths that get spread across the media.

    You have also been very clear about your discussion of ‘cornering the market.’

    My only question left is: Do you believe that racial profiling bears no significant advantage in ANY circumstances regarding finding a serial killer? Because that question has motivated a great deal of my comments on this thread.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 2:57 am - April 25, 2013

  169. Well then, Iggy can go cower in fear of leftists who might try to associate him with… me.

    As to racial profiling: Punt. I hate it because I know that “race” is a false system of classification. But I also agreed with John earlier, about profiling to save people. I guess the devil is in the details: I’d need it to be used only for the serial killers and terrorists, grounded in good statistics, applied right, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 3:18 am - April 25, 2013

  170. Okay, also, can we go back to Comment #42.

    I don’t know if you know Ignatius better than I and how he operates, but let’s say, for argument’s sake, he *was* suggesting guilt by association. Even if he was suggesting it, that’s not how I comprehended it. Let me explain where my mind went …

    Let me paint a scenario for you, Jeff. You’re a GP blogger. You start to accrue some street cred in conservative blogging circles and your profile starts to rise. CNN is doing a spot on political bloggers, and they catch wind of your name and approach you as a guest. You would have a national venue of ten minutes to discuss whatever you wanted as it pertains to politics. You have a platform to discuss sound economic policies which concern deregulated true capitalism in the U.S. You are able to convey it in a way that gets a general audience to understand and get excited about how your ideas would raise wages, expand the job market, lower inflation, and grow the middle class, increasing innovation and technology and pushing this country forward. People would talk about these ideas, spreading your policies, and affecting the voting booth, as well as changes for the better.

    1) Do you take the opportunity from CNN as presented?

    If so, pedal backwards. An intern at the news network does a little research. He finds this thread and your link to Black Peoria. He COMPLETELY IGNORES how you distanced yourself from the site, as well as made clear that you were utilizing the site for informational purposes only, not endorsing anything about the blogger’s views, etc. He brings this to the attention of the higher up’s and they either A) Axe your spot or B) Change the agenda and use you as a hit piece. You basically lose your opportunity to engender change, and put your political beliefs into action.

    2) Was it worth linking to Black Peoria?

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 3:36 am - April 25, 2013

  171. Also, in this scenario, let’s say the intern is gay, liberal and leaks word to gay sites about you. The manage to completely UNFAIRLY disparage your reputation. What they do is wrong, but there is power in numbers. Word travels. And, when you’re on CNN, instead of being about your economic views, your whole spot becomes about how you linked to Black Peoria, as well as whatever else they can dig up.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 4:14 am - April 25, 2013

  172. Sorry, Vince. Wrong.

    Again.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 25, 2013 @ 5:40 am - April 25, 2013

  173. A dilemma…………………..

    How does this claim:

    It’s a compelling list.

    But, on the other, as far as its veracity, not all the links check out, some even refer to other “blogs.” As well, a great portion of the list isn’t backed up.

    April 21, 2013 @ 3:58 pm

    …square itself with this one:

    (I haven’t gone through the list, so, for argument’s sake and because you seem to want me to, I’m going to assume that they are all legitimate and check out),

    April 25, 2013 @ 1:10 am

    Let’s keep this simple: these two remarks are diametrically opposed to one another. There is no possible way that both of them can be true simultaneously.
    Is it too much, at this point, after all the strained and (at times) overly lawyerly verbiage to get down to ‘where the rubber meets the road’ and call this out for what it is: unrelenting and unremitting douchebaggery (HT: MyShariaMoor)?
    ILC- I would think that you, more than most people, would be aware that there is absolutely no upside to engaging with refugees from Ringling Bros.
    Yet, the engagement continues regularly, and always ends the same way: no progress whatsoever.
    And please, no more invocations of the Yankee Clipper’s maxim that you do ‘all this’ for people who are new to the blog (and are lurking in the shadows of the thread). That’s nothing more than self-congratulatory twaddle at this point.
    This is a microcosm of what goes on constantly in the culture at large: the idea that by remaining steadfast that facts, logic and reason will ‘win the day’. This is true ONLY when you’re dealing with people who come to the table fully prepared to accept the application of facts, logic and reason, and willing to apply those as well.
    This piss poor excuse for an Emmett Kelly knockoff has NEVER been so inclined (and as the best predictor of future behavior is PAST behavior) will NEVER be so inclined.
    You said it yourself at #158: it’s BAD FAITH (it’s actually worse that that).
    Please stop rewarding pissy, pricky, pre-pubescent attention seekers for their bad faith.
    Just how many threads are you going to let this jerkoff sidetrack and derail (he does it constantly) before you say: ENOUGH! ?

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 6:44 am - April 25, 2013

  174. No, they’re not opposed to each other. Originally, I checked out the list, but I didn’t have time to go through it. A couple of things raised red flags and I expressed my concern. I didn’t want to vouch for a list I hadn’t checked out entirely for myself. And, presently, no one has done so on this thread. Perhaps if you took the time to do so rather than look for logistical holes in my hypothetical example, we’d all be better off. Was I supposed to ACCEPT the whole list as fact, when no one actually went through the whole list?

    So, yes, FOR ARGUMENT’S SAKE, as I stated, I assumed the list was legit. For all I know, it is. But, I don’t know if it is or isn’t. No one here does. But, as ILC stated, he has checked out a series of the links, and they were good, and that’s good enough for my hypothetical.

    Obviously, ILC wasn’t fully aware of the racist nature of the blog when he first linked to it, or, otherwise, he wouldn’t have had to later add the provision. He added the warning later because it escaped his attention. ADDITIONALLY, the list was plagiarized (from a racist message board system) with out proper due direct credit (they link to the site in general on the right side, but not the original post itself). Might there be something else that had escaped his attention? I DON”T KNOW. I haven’t gone through the entire list, and neither have you. But, for the sake of argument, I agreed to its legitimacy. I’m not going to put my name to anything that has a lot of suspicious elements to it.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 9:46 am - April 25, 2013

  175. refugees from Ringling Bros … This piss poor excuse for an Emmett Kelly knockoff has NEVER been so inclined … Please stop rewarding pissy, pricky, pre-pubescent attention seekers for their bad faith … Just how many threads are you going to let this jerkoff sidetrack and derail (he does it constantly) before you say: ENOUGH! ?

    … Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 6:44 am – April 25, 2013

    I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

    … Margaret Thatcher

    I’ve already alluded that this thread has helped me figure out some of things I didn’t understand. I admit that my understanding of ‘corner the market’

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 9:55 am - April 25, 2013

  176. … has changed since my exchange with ILC. I really thought I was correct and he wasn’t. I argued to the best of my ability. Yet, in the end, he convinced me that the term was used correctly, as I thought things through.

    I originally thought the Black Peoria list was suspect. There was an agenda that was the first red flag, and there was a flagrant use of expletives that sent of a second. That the data wasn’t even original and properly credited sends up another. Those are good reasons for one to scratch their head and wonder if it pases the smell test. However, it’s a compelling list of 57 names. A good portion of it appears to be legitimate. I did not have time to go through the whole thing. Should I have raised concern? Apparently not. Or perhaps, I should have addressed ILC more directly and asked, 1) “ILC, not all these links have entries, some of them don’t check out, and the list is plagiarized, why do you trust this list?” And, 2) “Isn’t even worth trusting when you have found other sources to make your point?”

    Sorry if I question things like Black Peoria, as well as the MSM. I just can’t sign onto something, because someone tells me too. As, I’ve already stated, ILC link to the source not realizing it was a racist site providing a plagiarized list. What if no one even brought it to his attention? HENCE, my hypothetical in #170/1.

    I’m sure ILC appreciates your concern. And, while I’m interested in HIS answers to the questions I posed to HIM, he’ll either answer them or he won’t, and that will be the end of that.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 10:05 am - April 25, 2013

  177. “he convinced me that the term WASN’T used correctly”

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 10:08 am - April 25, 2013

  178. Wanna hear something funny????

    I really only posted a comment on this thread earlier this morning, just to see if Mr. Smegma would take the bait, betting that he simply had to have the last word on the thread.

    Guess who just proved me right?!?!?!? :)

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 25, 2013 @ 10:56 am - April 25, 2013

  179. Sorry if I question things like Black Peoria, as well as the MSM. I just can’t sign onto something, because someone tells me too. As, I’ve already stated, ILC link to the source not realizing it was a racist site providing a plagiarized list. What if no one even brought it to his attention? HENCE, my hypothetical in #170/1.

    Ah yes, your dreaded hypothetical. Let’s review that, shall we? Emphasis mine:

    An intern at the news network does a little research. He finds this thread and your link to Black Peoria. He COMPLETELY IGNORES how you distanced yourself from the site, as well as made clear that you were utilizing the site for informational purposes only, not endorsing anything about the blogger’s views, etc. He brings this to the attention of the higher up’s and they either A) Axe your spot or B) Change the agenda and use you as a hit piece.

    And:

    171.Also, in this scenario, let’s say the intern is gay, liberal and leaks word to gay sites about you. The manage to completely UNFAIRLY disparage your reputation. What they do is wrong, but there is power in numbers. Word travels. And, when you’re on CNN, instead of being about your economic views, your whole spot becomes about how you linked to Black Peoria, as well as whatever else they can dig up.

    So let’s review.

    1) The intern ignored pertinent information.

    2) The intern spread lies about ILC

    3) The network, rather than checking the intern’s research, ran with a story on a single intern’s hearsay based on clear negligence and malice.

    4) The gay liberal websites acted wrongly and clearly in bad faith with the express intent of destroying ILC’s reputation.

    In other words, ILC, who acted correctly, is supposed to change HIS behavior to accomodate people who ignored pertinent information, didn’t do their research, and libeled him in an attempt to push their agenda.

    What that does, Vince Smetana, is demonstrate two things:

    1) You acknowledge that your fellow liberals and fellow members of the entertainment industry act in a libelous fashion to smear conservatives

    2) You acknowledge that your fellow liberals and members of the entertainment industry, despite their acting in a malicious and unprofessional fashion, do not need to change THEIR behavior; rather, conservatives like ILC should voluntarily silence themselves or be subject to the malicious libel of you and your fellow liberals.

    What you have constructed is an elaborate attempt to bully and abuse ILC into doing what you want with vague threats about losing something that has never happened due to malicious and vile behavior on the part of you and your fellow liberals.

    I cut to the chase. ILC doesn’t need to change his behavior. You and your fellow entertainment-industry and gay liberals need to change yours, given that you are allowing interns with axes to grind and poor research skills to put material on the air for which you are civilly liable.

    And the way to do that is simple. ILC needs to sue you. Indeed, ILC WOULD sue in that case and would likely win under any circumstance, because, as you describe, you and your fellow entertainment-industry liberals were so clearly acting with malice and in a fashion that clearly indicates your goal was to disparage him with reckless disregard for the truth.

    You can’t terrify people who know the consequences with your threats, Vince Smetana. And that’s all you are doing; you are threatening to maliciously act to destroy ILC’s reputation, and you acknowledge that liberals like yourself act maliciously to destroy the reputation of conservatives.

    In short, you have shot yourself in the foot and admitted that liberals like yourself are malicious liars who ignore facts and will do and say anything to disparage and destroy conservatives.

    Which ruins your whole piety and sowwy act.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2013 @ 11:00 am - April 25, 2013

  180. Vince, ILC has no answer for my contention that the list he presented as refutation of John’s initial assertion is a mathematical and logical error. Why? Because he finally realizes I’m right: you cannot compare simple integers (such as 57, pretending that all the links are active, etc., i.e. that the number 57 is accurate) with ratios, and that stating that something exists (black serial killers) has any meaning within the larger context John initially raised (per white serial killers ‘cornering the market’).

    Any normal, rational, secure person would admit they were wrong to use this list of 57 as pertinent to anything in this discussion. It isn’t. In fact, it has served no purpose except to distract us well beyond the number of comments the subject of serial killers by race deserves because it 1) is merely a list of serial killers, ILC not realizing that context is needed in order for such a list to mean anything; 2) the list itself is suspect because some of the information doesn’t check out (dead links, etc.); 3) the list was found on a website with a racist agenda, even though ILC keeps arguing that it’s just a list, implying that its location on the web is irrelevant. (The issue of the list’s veracity was dealt with way back in the early stages of this exchange. You and I think it’s better to suspect that such a list might be skewed or doctored in order to bolster the racist agenda that is everywhere on that site, especially since data re. serial killers can be found from more reputable sources — let alone avoid the taint of linking to a racist site. Since I doubt either of us has the time to research each name on the list of 57 cases in order to establish that it satisfies some standard of objectivity ILC is now throwing around, we think it’s best to avoid it altogether. ILC disagrees with us.)
    You’ll never get an admission from ILC that he’s wrong about anything, even when it’s as obvious as it is here.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 11:08 am - April 25, 2013

  181. ILC- I would think that you, more than most people, would be aware that there is absolutely no upside to engaging with refugees from Ringling Bros.

    Jman – You’re right. I was wrong to be an active part of this thing going on this long.

    There was just something about it that I couldn’t quite see or name, until #167, namely “guilt by association” as the key dynamic.

    I’ll try to remember those words sooner, next time. I had confused myself, by not picking a battleground to my clearest advantage as I do usually. (RVS being right that the list didn’t come from anybody I love, or would normally want to be around.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 11:10 am - April 25, 2013

  182. Oh, this was funny indeed.

    You and I think it’s better to suspect that such a list might be skewed or doctored in order to bolster the racist agenda that is everywhere on that site, especially since data re. serial killers can be found from more reputable sources — let alone avoid the taint of linking to a racist site.

    Followed by:

    Since I doubt either of us has the time to research each name on the list of 57 cases in order to establish that it satisfies some standard of objectivity ILC is now throwing around, we think it’s best to avoid it altogether.

    Yes, how dare ILC ask you to, you know, quantify or research your suspicions.

    And of course, your desire to avoid it is why you and Vince Smetana keep bringing it up over and over and over and over again, even including dire threats of how it could negatively impact ILC’s hypothetical future appearances on CNN.

    My suggestion, Ignatius; if you want to condemn the list, put in the legwork to research it yourself and put forward some objective facts instead of innuendo.

    And if you don’t want to do that, then let’s just call this what it is, which is your attempt to scream “racist” to disparage ILC.

    Which, as Vince Smetana has already admitted, he and his fellow liberals will do REGARDLESS of the facts or ethical implications involved.

    In short, give us a reason to care, either based on hard facts or based on actual evidence that this will make a tinker’s cusp of difference in how liberals behave.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2013 @ 11:16 am - April 25, 2013

  183. I was wrong to be an active part of this thing going on so long.

    Such as illogically and incorrectly (per mathematical ignorance) using a list of 57 names to “prove” that whites don’t ‘corner the market’ in serial killings. Were it not for that and ILC’s personal insecurity, this whole exchange could have been avoided.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 11:16 am - April 25, 2013

  184. Iggy – You misunderstand. I’m not addressing your contentions, because they are simply too fevered.

    Example: My having presented the list as a “refutation”, is a figment of your imagination. And always was.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 11:18 am - April 25, 2013

  185. (“refutation” implying, to me, an intentionally strong or complete argument)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 11:21 am - April 25, 2013

  186. You’ll never get an admission from ILC that he’s wrong about anything, even when it’s as obvious as it is here.

    Except, of course, that he took part in an argument he demonstrably lost.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 11:24 am - April 25, 2013

  187. NDT – Exactly.

    As I suggested earlier: Let Iggy run into his closet now and cower there, in his terror that some leftists might come along and mistakenly associate him… with me.

    Live on “guilt by association”, die on “guilt by association” ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 11:25 am - April 25, 2013

  188. At comment #40:

    John (via blockquote):We still have the market cornered on serial killings

    ILC: Not according to this: [link]

    From Random House Dictionary: Refute:

    1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
    2. to prove (a person) to be in error.

    Iggy – You misunderstand. I’m not addressing your contentions, because they are simply too fevered.

    Translation: I’m not addressing your point because I can’t dodge mathematical proofs. So, I’ll accuse you of being emotional instead (“shrieking”, “fevered”, etc.) in order to distract from my failings.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 11:32 am - April 25, 2013

  189. Occurrences in this thread of me saying the words, “I was wrong” – 90, 181.
    Occurrences in this thread of me saying the words, “You’re right” to someone else – 37, 134, 146, 181.
    Those are only the exact word matches; more occurrences exist in different words.

    So yeah, I never admit when I’m wrong. Except, as Iggy concedes with the generosity and insight for which he is known, when I do. LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 11:32 am - April 25, 2013

  190. My having presented the list as a “refutation”, is a figment of your imagination.

    Then, what was the point of the list?

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 11:33 am - April 25, 2013

  191. Like I said at #143: Who gives a s**t?
    Shake off the cheap diversion of which races’ members commit the most ‘mass shootings’ (white males, but in direct proportion to their percentage of total population – 75-78%), and consider who’s responsible for the most crimes committed with ALL firearms (as a percentage, it’s black males, in numbers WELL BEYOND the 13% of total population that they represent).
    Or is it R-A-C-I-S-T to point that out?
    If you answer ‘yes’, then my response to you is F**K OFF.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 11:35 am - April 25, 2013

  192. Then, what was the point of the list?

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 11:33 am – April 25, 2013

    To prove you’re a douche. Which he’s accomplished.

    Moving on…

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 25, 2013 @ 11:37 am - April 25, 2013

  193. (as a percentage, it’s black males, in numbers proportions WELL BEYOND the 13% of total population that they represent).

    Self corrected for accuracy.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 11:40 am - April 25, 2013

  194. (as a percentage, it’s black males, in numbers proportions WELL BEYOND the 13% of total population that they represent).

    Correcting the correction. Jeez!

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 11:43 am - April 25, 2013

  195. My comment waaaaayyyy back at #39, right after John asserted white ‘corner the market’:

    In absolute numbers, the largest number of serial killers are white. However, the number of black serial killers far exceeds the percentage of the overall black population. One of any race is too many.

    We could have simply let it go at that. But no, logic errors got in the way.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 11:49 am - April 25, 2013

  196. Then, what was the point of the list?

    I’ve already told you at #166 and many other places, RVS. This why I don’t like conversing with you: you don’t seem to retain what I’ve already said.

    I’ll try to say it once more. The point was to offer evidence, suggesting against John’s assertion. Not proof (as in, a complete argument). Just anecdotal evidence to say “Hey, think about that some more.”

    Such distinctions escape Iggy’s mind, of course.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 11:49 am - April 25, 2013

  197. ILC – if you have access to my e-mail, could you drop me a note?
    I’d like to have a ‘talk’ and none of these comment threads are good venues.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 11:52 am - April 25, 2013

  198. John made an assertion with a ratio. ILC tried to refute it (“Not according to this:…”) with a simple integer. And now he’s trying to couch it as an ‘anecdote’. Fail.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 12:04 pm - April 25, 2013

  199. Fever still not broken, eh Iggy?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 12:08 pm - April 25, 2013

  200. ILC, Thank you for answering the question, but I kept asking because Ignatius made a convincing argument as to why employing the list of 57 names was irrelevant, questionable, and even toxic. He was honest, employed logic, and was pretty succinct.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 12:08 pm - April 25, 2013

  201. Thanks. And I would like to cancel what I just said at #199. I have a point there, but it’s a poor way to say it. I want to say it more directly. And here it is.

    Iggy, the simple fact is that you have been -over-reacting- to the things I’ve had to say in this thread, from start to finish. And, you know what? That’s not my problem.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 12:17 pm - April 25, 2013

  202. There’s a barrel of red and green apples. Most of them are red. We don’t know how many apples there are total, yet. Person A is blindfolded, about to reach in and grab one, saying “I bet I have a 7/10 chance of grabbing a red apple.”

    Person B says, “Well, there are 57 green apples on a tree behind the pump-house.”

    Person A says, “That’s nice, but I think I’ll end up grabbing a red apple.”

    Person B says, “Actually, there are 100 apples in the barrel, 75 of which are red, 25 green. You have a 25% chance of grabbing a green apple.”

    Person A says, “Okay, thanks, but what was the point of mentioning the 57 apples on the tree behind the pump-house?”

    Person B says, “Well, because I felt like it. And I thought you might like to know there were 57 green apples on a tree behind the pump-house.”

    Person A says, “Well, there are 25 green apples here. If I want one, I can just remove the blindfold and grab one.”

    Person B starts spinning and looking up at the sky and then falls down from getting dizzy.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 12:20 pm - April 25, 2013

  203. Iggy, the simple fact is that you have been -over-reacting- to the things I’ve had to say in this thread, from start to finish.

    Actually, no. I’ve been pointing out flaws in your arguments, such as your now attempting to hide your obvious math/logic flaw by calling it merely an anecdote, which is itself a logical flaw (argument by anecdote). I can understand why you might consider this overreacting, as your errors are under discussion, but my pointing things out is all this is. This entire discussion could have been avoided were it not for you, so we completely agree with your statement:

    I was wrong to be an active part of this thing going on so long.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 12:27 pm - April 25, 2013

  204. Translation: I’m not addressing your point because I can’t dodge mathematical proofs. So, I’ll accuse you of being emotional instead (“shrieking”, “fevered”, etc.) in order to distract from my failings.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 11:32 am – April 25, 2013

    Except for one small detail:

    Since I doubt either of us has the time to research each name on the list of 57 cases in order to establish that it satisfies some standard of objectivity ILC is now throwing around, we think it’s best to avoid it altogether.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 11:08 am – April 25, 2013

    Generally, Ignatius, “mathematical proof” requires you to actually do the math.

    And since you acknowledge you haven’t researched or actually done the math on this list, it is logically and rationally impossible to state you have provided “mathematical proof”.

    But it makes perfect sense if you are a bigot desperately trying to smear and attack ILC.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2013 @ 12:51 pm - April 25, 2013

  205. ILC, Thank you for answering the question, but I kept asking because Ignatius made a convincing argument as to why employing the list of 57 names was irrelevant, questionable, and even toxic. He was honest, employed logic, and was pretty succinct.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 12:08 pm – April 25, 2013

    Nope.

    It is illogical for anyone to state that ILC must modify his behavior because liberals are pathological liars who will smear conservatives regardless of facts.

    And, as I pointed out, that is exactly what you admitted, Vince Smetana.

    1)You admitted that liberals like your intern are pathological liars who will deliberately and maliciously twist facts and ignore relevant information.

    2)You acknowledged that your liberal media is so unprofessional and biased that they will determine their entire programming structure based on the “research” of a single intern

    3) You clearly stated that gay blogs will repeat the malicious lies that said intern kicked up for the sole purpose of destroying conservatives.

    Since you are going to lie anyway, since you support this lying, why on earth should ILC change HIS behavior?

    Even better, since you acknowledged that ILC acted correctly, why are you still here caterwauling and demanding that he change his behavior?

    The answer: This is about power. And Ignatius is frankly a coward and an idiot for letting pathological liars like you, people like yourself who ADMIT liberals lie constantly about conservatives and will continue to lie even if conservatives do the right thing, determine what is right and wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2013 @ 1:03 pm - April 25, 2013

  206. I’ve been pointing out flaws in your arguments,

    Actually, no. You have not been. Rather, you’ve been over-interpreting my arguments, stretching them to meanings or levels of intensity that I had not given them. And that I have long since clarified or explained about not having given them. And then you continue to point out the flaws in your over-interpreted version…. like it matters.

    That, in part, is what I mean by over-reacting.

    I can see why you would not want to believe it. You’ve made quite an investment in your position here.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 1:17 pm - April 25, 2013

  207. Attempting to hide a logical flaw (integer vs. ratio) with another (argument by anecdote). Keep digging, ILC.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 1:22 pm - April 25, 2013

  208. Attempting to hide a logical flaw (integer vs. ratio) with another (argument by anecdote). Keep digging, ILC.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 1:22 pm – April 25, 2013

    Mhm.

    And you’re basing this on what, the acknowledged FACT that you haven’t actually done any research on the list in question?

    Since I doubt either of us has the time to research each name on the list of 57 cases in order to establish that it satisfies some standard of objectivity ILC is now throwing around, we think it’s best to avoid it altogether.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 11:08 am – April 25, 2013

    Also, Ignatius, why do you keep avoiding the fact that your counterpart Vince Smetana has acknowledged that liberals don’t look at facts and just lie about conservatives anyway? Is it because the argument for ILC to change his behavior, which is what you want, weakens when it is acknowledged that ILC’s behavior has no bearing whatsoever on liberals lying and smearing conservatives?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2013 @ 1:26 pm - April 25, 2013

  209. Keep digging, ILC.

    Keep reacting, Iggy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 1:28 pm - April 25, 2013

  210. You can’t refute logic, ILC. That’s why you have to try to make it about me.

    [Jeff adds: You can't defend guilt-by-association tactics, Iggy. That's why you have to over-interpret my argument.]

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 1:54 pm - April 25, 2013

  211. NDT – Iggy seems to agree with me, that John was suggesting that whites are over-represented among serial killers.

    But Iggy doesn’t like it that I said to John, in effect: have you thought about the simple fact that it’s easy to come up with non-white serial killer names? (list of 57) Iggy seems to feel that I got in his way.

    And so we get his previous misrepresentation of the list, exaggeration of my argument (it was hardly meant to be airtight), defense of guilt-by-association tactics (#92) and borderline uses of same, etc. Oh, well! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 1:55 pm - April 25, 2013

  212. John asserted a ratio (whites corner the market in serial killings) and ILC attempts to refute it with a logical fallacy (“Not according to this: [racist website that posts a list of 57 names]“). He now says he wasn’t refuting (see definition of refute that I provided above), but merely offering an anecdote. This is also a logical fallacy. Oh, well! ;)

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 2:01 pm - April 25, 2013

  213. John asserted a ratio (whites corner the market in serial killings)

    Where’s the ratio stated in ‘corner the market’?
    You need numbers to represent a ratio; not a term, expression, euphemism, idiom, phrase, generalization.
    You’re well past tiresome at this point.
    Put a f**king lid on it, ok.
    Or, more politely: shove off, Euclid.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 2:15 pm - April 25, 2013

  214. Ignatius, Not that it means anything to you, but I once held ILC in a high regard when I first started reading GP. I was impressed with the confidence in which he expressed his economic opinions. Unfortunately, we got into it a couple of times later on (even producing a thread not unlike this–though he, naturally, transferred all the blame of its existence onto me). I knew the things he was accusing me of were false and baseless. What I couldn’t reconcile is that he actually was the person who engaged in this type of behavior. It was difficult to process for a while. While I’ve witnessed it between him and others in minor examples, this thread put the final nail in putting everything into context. It’s neither here or there to you, but thank you. Have a good day. And I look forward to seeing you post at GP in the future.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 2:21 pm - April 25, 2013

  215. Saying that whites corner the market is a ratio. A ratio is a mathematical expression of one number out of another number, a total, as in 2/5, or ‘per’ (the per refers to the divisor). In John’s example, the numerator == ‘whites’, the denominator == ‘market’. One might even interpret this as a full-blown equation, as in (whites/market = corner). (If you know something about mathematics, you’ll notice that I used two different types of equals signs. That should give you a clue.) A simple integer cannot possibly make a meaningful comparison with such a ratio. It’s as if one is saying “Rabbits can’t eat more carrots out of my garden than deer because look at these 3 deer.” It makes no sense.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 2:27 pm - April 25, 2013

  216. Ok, teacher teacher, let’s try it this way:

    Saying that whites corner the market is a ratio.

    A ratio is a mathematical expression of one number out of another number, a total, as in 2/5, or ‘per’ (the per refers to the divisor)

    therefore:

    ‘whites corner the market’ is a mathematical expression.

    Errr, only in your fevered (ht: ILC) mind.

    You know, you and your new ‘thread buddy’ ought to get married.

    And since you like to reference the dictionary, here’s what Oxford’s has to say about ‘ratio(s):

    noun (plural ratios)

    the quantitative relation between two amounts showing the number of times one value contains or is contained within the other:
    the ratio of men’s jobs to women’s is 8 to 1

    ‘…corner the market, by definition CAN NOT be a ratio as it is:
    a) NOT a NUMBER
    rather, it is:
    b) a term in common English that is general, generic, fungible, vague, open to interpretation, not concrete, lacking in specificity
    which characteristics a ratio, BY DEFINITION, does not share because it is represented by ABSOLUTE NUMBERS.

    ILC is right about you and your incessant digging.
    Keep this shit up and you’ll wind up in China.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 2:42 pm - April 25, 2013

  217. What we know, Ignatius, is this.

    Since I doubt either of us has the time to research each name on the list of 57 cases in order to establish that it satisfies some standard of objectivity ILC is now throwing around, we think it’s best to avoid it altogether.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 11:08 am – April 25, 2013

    So since you haven’t researched or actually even done any sort of math on this, your invoking math is nothing more than a lie at this point.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2013 @ 2:42 pm - April 25, 2013

  218. Ignatius, Not that it means anything to you, but I once held ILC in a high regard when I first started reading GP.

    Yup, right up to the point at which he disagreed with you.

    And when he wouldn’t give in, you started namecalling and attacking him.

    And now, since he won’t give you what you want, you’re trashing and lying about him, just like you threatened to do previously.

    So there’s the answer to the question, Vince Smetana; you are going to lie about and trash conservatives unless they give you what you want.

    So now that Ignatius sees that you will lie about and trash conservatives even if they do the right thing, and that you lie about and trash conservatives unless they do exactly what they want, what do you think his takeaway should be?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2013 @ 2:46 pm - April 25, 2013

  219. Vince, ILC and I go back a few years. From early on (meaning from soon after the time I arrived here), he and I have engaged in these battles many times and it’s always the same: challenge something he says and he evades, dodges, starts arguing minutiae such as that he never meant it as a refutation, exactly…, turns it into something personal, blames the other person, refuses to concede when he’s wrong. It’s an insecurity issue. He doesn’t argue in good faith, as in someone who is willing to work with you and get to the truth. He’s too busy dancing around, trying to avoid any blame for misunderstanding, and of course he can always rely on the GP clique to provide snarky support. Men of goodwill would simply admit they made a mistake (a mistake by any rational definition, but particularly in light of what this has caused) and try to find a better (better sourced, valid, less repugnant) source of information to make their case. Instead, we’re treated to an argument about objective information, that the list isn’t necessarily wrong despite dead links, being traced to an anti-Semitic site, being used for racist propaganda, etc. We both acknowledged way, way back that even if the list contains valid info, the cost of linking to it isn’t worth it due to other factors. But ILC doesn’t see it that way, or he’s arguing otherwise in order to save face for having made such a stupid mistake. That’s his choice. I hope other blogs are taking notes. And all the best to you. I hope to converse with you in the near future.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 2:48 pm - April 25, 2013

  220. Jman1961:

    ‘…corner the market, by definition CAN NOT be a ratio as it is:
    a) NOT a NUMBER

    ILC:

    they would have something like 90% of the serial killers.

    Ignatius:

    I hope to converse with you in the near future.

    Till then.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 2:55 pm - April 25, 2013

  221. refuses to concede when he’s wrong.

    He made that very concession to me at #181, which concession you cited at your #203

    Ergo….you’re full of shit.

    And I’ve seen ILC admit error before this thread (which has been ground to a pulp by you and your future girlfriend engaging in your twerpy tag-team).

    And now that you’ve revealed some background information, I’d suggest that it’s YOU that’s insecure, most likely because ILC can whip your ass in virtually any intellectual clash, and your poor little underdeveloped ego just can’t handle it.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 2:56 pm - April 25, 2013

  222. Men of goodwill would simply admit they made a mistake (a mistake by any rational definition, but particularly in light of what this has caused) and try to find a better (better sourced, valid, less repugnant) source of information to make their case.

    And he did.

    And you ignored it and started screaming about the other website.

    So ILC did exactly what you wanted, Ignatius, but you ignored it and continued to scream and rant and piss.

    And this?

    I hope other blogs are taking notes.

    So you are deliberately out to smear and misrepresent ILC on other blogs.

    Those are facts. Those are links. Clearly you are not arguing in good faith here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2013 @ 3:01 pm - April 25, 2013

  223. Vince, ILC and I go back a few years. From early on (meaning from soon after the time I arrived here), he and I have engaged in these battles many times…

    Hey, just out of curiosity..have any of your “discussions” taken place at, I dunno, some place like DailyKos, ThinkProgress, DemocraticUnderground…any place like that?

    Cause…really…I’d like to know if your avenue of communication to someone like Mr. Smegma is available on any left-leaning site, other than his own little film critique web-thingy.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 25, 2013 @ 3:04 pm - April 25, 2013

  224. Jman, I think we’ve reached the point at which everyone realizes that Vince Smetana and Ignatius both hate ILC and will do anything in their power to attack and smear him.

    There’s literally no response left to this. We are dealing with two people, Vince Smetana and Ignatius, who have acknowledged that they are bigoted towards and hate ILC, and believe that everything he says and does is a lie.

    So there you have it. These two bigots are going to continue again and again and again to trash ILC. They are not going to debate honestly, they are not going to bring up intelligent points, they are just going to attack and attack and attack him because they hate him.

    And I will bet you that both of them are running screaming to Dan Blatt right now to demand that ILC be stripped of blogging rights.

    Because that’s what we’re dealing with here. Leftists like Vince Smetana and Ignatius are nothing more than amoral spoiled brats who will say and do anything to hurt other people they dislike.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2013 @ 3:06 pm - April 25, 2013

  225. Cause…really…I’d like to know if your avenue of communication to someone like Mr. Smegma is available on any left-leaning site, other than his own little film critique web-thingy.

    Learn to read. “Vince (comma), ILC and I (meaning ILC and myself) go back…”

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 3:08 pm - April 25, 2013

  226. You’re spot on, NDT.
    And notice how Ignatius, like all cowards, responds to MyShariaMoor over a relatively inconsequential error (misread), but pretends that my schooling of him (it) at #216 doesn’t exist.
    Anyone want to take bets on how long it takes him to say ….”I’m really busy and can’t respond to everything”, or “I can’t be expected to read every comment in a thread this large”, or some other horsesh*t ‘duck, dodge and hide’ variant), if he even has the nerve and to respond at all?

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 3:16 pm - April 25, 2013

  227. Iggy: The definition of insecure is, your still being here to make sure that everyone (cough) knows (cough) I’m awful.

    As you can see, it’s not working. But hypothetically, if I were so awful, then you couldn’t possibly have a good or positive reason to be here, reacting again and again.

    I hope other blogs are taking notes.

    See, right there. Here’s a big hint for you, Iggy: I’m not that important. Never will be.

    Except, of course…. to you. Good luck.

    (Same to RVS – on both counts)

    (And everyone else: Thank you for your confidence and your great comments!)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2013 @ 3:16 pm - April 25, 2013

  228. Ignatius:
    Tell us all again exactly who it is who can NEVER admit that they’re wrong?
    You’re a five-star phony, pal.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 3:17 pm - April 25, 2013

  229. ILC: The definition of insecure is your still being here to make sure that everyone (cough) knows (cough) I’m awful.

    Fixed it for you.

    [Jeff adds: Lost me, bud. In a blockquote, you accurately named the speaker, then gave his quote.]

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 3:19 pm - April 25, 2013

  230. And I thought this was entertaining.

    He doesn’t argue in good faith, as in someone who is willing to work with you and get to the truth.

    Well of course not. After all, ILC is hardly going to help Ignatius make Ignatius’s usual argument, which is that ILC is always wrong and is a stoopid mean racist poopy head.

    Which also confirms in Ignatius’s mind that ILC is anti-truth, because the truth in Ignatius’s world is that ILC is always wrong and is a stoopid mean racist poopy head.

    It’s the Harry Reid school of argument; you are wrong, you have to prove that you’re not wrong, and since you’re always wrong, any proof you provide demonstrates that you are lying.

    He’s too busy dancing around, trying to avoid any blame for misunderstanding, and of course he can always rely on the GP clique to provide snarky support.

    Yes, because all of us who might disagree with you are also always wrong and are stoopid mean racist poopy heads. That’s why we comment here, of course; it’s the only site that allows us to be stoopid mean racist poopy heads, because Dan and Bruce are too.

    Men of goodwill would simply admit they made a mistake (a mistake by any rational definition, but particularly in light of what this has caused) and try to find a better (better sourced, valid, less repugnant) source of information to make their case.

    Of course; we would all be right and truthful if we just always did what Ignatius and Vince Smetana said, and since we don’t, we are wrong, anti-truth, and stoopid mean racist poopy-heads.

    I hope other blogs are taking notes.

    Because the opinion of other people matters – but only when they’re against ILC, since anyone who isn’t against ILC is part of the “clique” and is an anti-truth stoopid mean poopy-head.

    So Ignatius, do you abuse other people too?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2013 @ 3:25 pm - April 25, 2013

  231. Jman, you seem to need some attention, so here’s some: a ratio need not be expressed numerically. If someone says “We didn’t have enough milk to fill the glass”, a ratio is being expressed. Have you ever heard of pseudo-code? Seen it? Programmers constantly express ratios in pseudo-code. Whether in numerical values or in variables such as x, y, a word, an icon, smiley face, the ratio still represents the relationship of one value out of another. A mind like yours that demands everything be literal might have a hard time with that, but variables have been used to represent numbers for centuries.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 3:28 pm - April 25, 2013

  232. And notice how Ignatius, like all cowards, responds to MyShariaMoor over a relatively inconsequential error (misread), but pretends that my schooling of him (it) at #216 doesn’t exist.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 3:16 pm – April 25, 2013

    Actually, it’s very consequential, Jman; what MSM is going for is that Ignatius likely HAS been smearing ILC on other blogs, along with Vince Smetana.

    And it would totally ruin Ignatius’s concern-trolling about what other blogs would think and how they could “misinterpret” things if it turned out that Vince Smetana and Ignatius were doing exactly that.

    So how about it, Ignatius? What “other blogs” have you run off and denounced ILC on? Why not answer My Sharia Moor and share with us the other websites on which you’ve been operating so that we can judge that, m’kay? After all, you and your new friend Vince Smetana like to go on about how I’ve been banned from other websites; certainly similar information about you would be relevant.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2013 @ 3:30 pm - April 25, 2013

  233. Lost me, bud.

    You’re accusing me of insecurity based upon my still being here. You’re still here, just as I am.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 3:33 pm - April 25, 2013

  234. a ratio need not be expressed numerically.

    Not according to the dictionary, which you’ve tried to beat ILC to death with.

    STRIKE ONE.

    If someone says “We didn’t have enough milk to fill the glass”, a ratio is being expressed.

    Again, not according the accepted definition.

    STRIKE TWO.

    Have you ever heard of pseudo-code? Seen it? Programmers constantly express ratios in pseudo-code.

    Why, yes, I believe I have, as for many years I made a handsome living coding in RPGII, Fortran, COBOL, IBM Assembler, and JAVA.
    But then again, we’re not talking about ‘code’ here, are we?

    Nice try, but……

    STRIKE THREE. YERRRRRR OUT!

    Grab some bench, f**ktard.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 3:38 pm - April 25, 2013

  235. So, Ignorantius, show us all how much YOU know about code:

    In an ANSI computer code of your choice, post a representation of a ‘ratio’ expressed as ‘pseudo-code’.

    The only thing that’s ‘pseudo’ in this thread is your intellect.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 3:43 pm - April 25, 2013

  236. We’ll wait while you search the web for the meaning of ANSI………

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 3:47 pm - April 25, 2013

  237. And we’ll wait longer still while you scour Wikipedia to see if there’s an example of this ‘ratio expressed as ‘pseudo-code” that you can cut and paste in to a comment so we’ll all see how erudite and accomplished you are……………

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 3:49 pm - April 25, 2013

  238. We’re still here, Mr. Gates (or is it Mr. Jobs?….oh, wait….he’s dead….can’t be him).

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 3:50 pm - April 25, 2013

  239. Whether in numerical values or in variables such as x, y, a word, an icon, smiley face, the ratio still represents the relationship of one value out of another.

    But ONLY where the variable is used to contain ever changing values, based on changing inputs.
    NOT where we’re talking about 1 specific instance of a value.

    You’re not nearly as smart as you hallucinate you are.
    Shall I smack the sh*t out of you some more, or have you had enough?

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 3:54 pm - April 25, 2013

  240. Again, not according the accepted definition.

    Go argue with yourself, Jman. You can’t convince any mathematician that (x/y) doesn’t represent a ratio. Best of luck to you.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 3:56 pm - April 25, 2013

  241. But ONLY where the variable is used to contain ever changing values, based on changing inputs.

    Not at all. A variable is merely a placeholder for some value, usually unknown. The term ‘variable’ doesn’t refer to a change in the value itself, but merely refers to the type of placeholder. For example, x + 6 = 7. ‘x’ is the variable and can only refer to one value, 1. That isn’t a changing input. A variable might be x, or y, or z, or anything else. It might be ‘whites’, ‘blacks’… That is what is meant by the term ‘variable’, i.e. the placeholder.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 4:00 pm - April 25, 2013

  242. You’re lying again and shifting the goalposts, Ms. GlitterBomb.

    ‘x/y’ does IN FACT represent a RATIO, and I’d never said anywhere that I’d try to convince anyone of anything other than that, you lying prick.

    ‘corners the market’ represents a term in the English language.
    That’s where you started this.

    You lose, Miss Big Person Who Can Admit When She’s Wrong.

    A**hole.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:00 pm - April 25, 2013

  243. And the same applies to ratios of any kind. x/4 = 2, ‘x’ is the variable. 8 is the value and that isn’t ‘ever changing’, as you allege.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 4:02 pm - April 25, 2013

  244. Your #241 is a needless rehash of what I had already CORRECTLY stated. The ‘variable NAME’ doesn’t change, but the value that the variable contains at any given time, can and often does change.

    Or you going to reveal to us that you’re an IT guy, as well?

    It’s YOU that’s being LITERAL, you simpering shit, and you’re getting it WRONG at the same time.

    Keep flailing, you pathetic bastard.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:04 pm - April 25, 2013

  245. But ONLY where the variable is used to contain ever changing values, based on changing inputs.
    NOT where we’re talking about 1 specific instance of a value.

    Sorry, you’re just wrong. You don’t understand the definition of ‘variable’. You think it applies to the value and it doesn’t.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 4:05 pm - April 25, 2013

  246. ‘x/4 = 2′ is an EQUATION, dumbf**k, not a RATIO.

    ‘x/4′ is a RATIO, but you change it’s meaning and representation when you add the ‘=2′.

    You’re a perfect example of what my dad meant when he’d have the misfortune to deal with a shitbum poseur like you and say to them:

    “You’re so f—ing smart, you’re stupid.”

    Translate that for the us, Ms. Rosetta Stone.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:07 pm - April 25, 2013

  247. ‘x/4 = 2′ is an EQUATION, dumbf**k, not a RATIO.

    Read more carefully. I’m using the ratio in an example so that you understand what I mean. I would have thought that would have been obvious, i.e. no need for comment.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 4:12 pm - April 25, 2013

  248. You think it applies to the value and it doesn’t.

    Yes it does, you moron, and that’s why it’s called a VARIABLE; the value can change from one instance to the next.

    Now that you’ve dug the hole as deep as you have, do us all a favor and pull the dirt in on top of yourself.

    Thanks!

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:13 pm - April 25, 2013

  249. So, do you now understand the mathematical definition of ‘variable’? The letter ‘x’ doesn’t mean that the value x represents is changing, as in ‘varies’; it merely means that the placeholder can be anything representational. Yes, even words.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 4:15 pm - April 25, 2013

  250. Goodbye, Princess, I’ll leave you here to continue fingering yourself or bounce off the walls, whichever pleases you.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:15 pm - April 25, 2013

  251. Glad you finally understand. See ya.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 4:17 pm - April 25, 2013

  252. I was acing geometry in the 6th grade, algebra in the 7th and 8th grades and calculus in the 11th grade while you were jerking off to the Charles Atlas ads in the back off comic books.

    There’s NOTHING you can teach me about ‘variables’, ‘variable names’, placeholders, ratios, code/pseudo code, nor likely anything else of real value.
    You do serve as a cautionary reminder of how an immature, spiteful and vengeful assh**e behaves and how one might best avoid becoming one.
    And for that, my everlasting thanks.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:20 pm - April 25, 2013

  253. Good evening, ma’am.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:21 pm - April 25, 2013

  254. Jman1961 > Did you kiss your mama with that mouth when you were a kid? Or did she not hug you enough? (Seems that someone agreed with someone else about Ignatius shrieking. Though, rather, I distinctively detect it in 50-something Jman).

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 4:23 pm - April 25, 2013

  255. I took algebra in 8th, geometry in 9th, pre-calc in 11th, and calculas in 12th. Can I get a gold star too?

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 4:25 pm - April 25, 2013

  256. Miss Movie Critic:

    Yawwwwwwn!

    Are you back again?
    If you don’t get a ‘move on’, you won’t be ready in time for your date with your girlfriend, Iggy.
    Now run along and have a good time.
    Don’t forget to hold each other’s hands before crossing the street, and remember to LOOK BOTH WAYS.
    Atta girl!

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:29 pm - April 25, 2013

  257. @Vince ;) He actually thought that ‘variable’ only referred to ‘ever-changing inputs’ in a ratio. Where do these people come from?

    Comment by Ignatius — April 25, 2013 @ 4:31 pm - April 25, 2013

  258. Can I get a gold star too?

    I didn’t get ‘gold stars’. I got ‘honor roll’ and scholarships.
    But there’s no doubt that if you DID do more than ‘take’ these classes (which assertion is in doubt, as you’re on record here as a LIAR), and you’re grades were as good as mine were, you wouldn’t hesitate to tell us all.
    That’s why you’re so pathetic…..you’re always looking for the gold star, and dagnabit!, you STILL haven’t earned one yet.
    That’s so sad.
    Sniff!

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:34 pm - April 25, 2013

  259. jerking off to the Charles Atlas ads in the back off comic books.

    Well, I guess we know that Jman’s type is Italian weightlifter.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 4:34 pm - April 25, 2013

  260. He actually thought that ‘variable’ only referred to ‘ever-changing inputs’ in a ratio. Where do these people come from?

    Vince can’t answer that….he’s developmentally handicapped.
    And it reveals that you, like the Movie Queen, are a LIAR.

    Goodnight, girls. Mind the babysitter.
    Say your prayers.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:37 pm - April 25, 2013

  261. Jman, Math was my best subject when I was a kid. I got straight A’s in Junior High and most of high school. Last semester of Calculas I got a B. I also had a case of the Senioritis. And I graduated high school with a 3.85. Do I get my gold star now? Or, are your hands too busy jerking off to your Italian Meatball sandwich?

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 4:37 pm - April 25, 2013

  262. I forgot. I got scholarships! Scholarships too, based on merit, like YOU, to help pay for college!

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 4:39 pm - April 25, 2013

  263. Keep your eye out for backpacks and pressure cookers in strange places, Mr. Smegma.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:39 pm - April 25, 2013

  264. and you’re grades

    I hope you didn’t get good grades for grammar, because, you know, “you are.” FAIL!

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 4:40 pm - April 25, 2013

  265. That was a ‘typo’, Miss ‘..and the such.’ Just like you’re a typo, on the pages of humanity.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:42 pm - April 25, 2013

  266. Just like you’re a typo, on the pages of humanity.

    Perhaps your tasteless warning for “backpacks and pressure cookers in strange places” will take care of that.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 4:46 pm - April 25, 2013

  267. Perhaps your tasteless warning for “backpacks and pressure cookers in strange places” will take care of that.

    One can only hope!

    And no more tasteless (which it is) than your remark in a newer thread that as much as said that 2 young women and an 8 year old boy were murdered in Boston 10 days ago because we need to ‘change our ways’.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 4:50 pm - April 25, 2013

  268. @Vince He actually thought that ‘variable’ only referred to ‘ever-changing inputs’ in a ratio. Where do these people come from?

    Haha, RIGHT? It seems J-Capital-M-A-N has a case of tunnelvision. Not sure if it affects him when he’s calm and measured (if that ever happens), but it’s certainly a condition when he’s on a mindless warpath.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 4:51 pm - April 25, 2013

  269. Nice to know that wherever Mr. Smegma goes, Romper Room is right behind him.

    :)

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 25, 2013 @ 4:55 pm - April 25, 2013

  270. Oh…wait…as Mr. Smegma would say…

    “Margaret Thatcher.”

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 25, 2013 @ 4:55 pm - April 25, 2013

  271. on a mindless warpath.

    Which is a perfect description of the sum total of your piss poor existence.
    As low as that ‘backpacks’ comment was, I’d trade you out for those 3 poor souls in a heartbeat if there was any way that could be done, and I mean that sincerely.
    You are truly a worthless sack of [expletive withheld].

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 5:00 pm - April 25, 2013

  272. [expletive withheld].

    Why withhold the expletive, Jman? You’ve already sunk beneath that with your behavior and assortment of references (which included introducing the boston bombing incident to make a sick threat). NOW, you’re going to choose to use some sense of decorum. Such a gentleman. *waves fan*

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 5:04 pm - April 25, 2013

  273. Such a gentleman. *waves fan*

    Check it out….the troll thinks he he’s Carrie Ann, and somehow has a vote as to what constitutes discussion.

    Funny smegma

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 25, 2013 @ 5:10 pm - April 25, 2013

  274. You’ve already sunk beneath that……

    Imagine that, I’m this low (according to you), and I can still look down and see the sharp point on that retarded head of your’s.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 5:31 pm - April 25, 2013

  275. I can still look down and see the sharp point on that retarded head of your’s.

    Then perhaps you should sit back and enjoy a martini with resident commenter Peter Hughes, who enjoys the same view of my “pointy head” from his padded cell.

    P.S. It’s “yours,” Mr. “I got ‘honor roll’ and scholarships.”

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 25, 2013 @ 5:49 pm - April 25, 2013

  276. You’re (contraction of ‘you are’) an a**hole, as your sad attempt at elevating yourself with that ‘apostrophe admonition’ of yours.

    Ok, Grammar Girl?

    Now go stab yourself in the neck.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 6:24 pm - April 25, 2013

  277. Does it dawn on you yet that NO ONE around here, other than your latest girlfriend, Ms. (P)Iggy, can stand you?
    Or is it the ‘M’ in S&M that turns you on?

    Go ahead now, show us all how desperately you need to get the last comment in, Fido.
    Go on, show us!
    Attaboy!

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 25, 2013 @ 6:29 pm - April 25, 2013

  278. I neglected to give NDT a shout-out specifically for comment #179, which was brilliant. Fixing that, now.

    RVS had suggested that I worry more about what the vicious gay sites and CNN interns are going to do to me. Would RVS equally advise women to change their habits of dress, lest they be raped? I wouldn’t.

    NDT is right that, in expressing those concerns, RVS conceded implicitly that too many “liberals…are malicious liars who ignore facts and will do and say anything to disparage and destroy conservatives.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 26, 2013 @ 1:42 pm - April 26, 2013

  279. Would RVS equally advise women to change their habits of dress, lest they be raped?

    I don’t care to have the last word, as I’ve been accused of wanting. And if someone else wants to do it, please feel free. I couldn’t give two licks. But, to answer the question ILC posed in my direction, whether rhetorically or not (it’s not entirely clear, but I am addressed with what one could interpret is interest in my answer), I say my response is “no, unless there was an obvious and imminent threat.” I wouldn’t advise two American men to *not* hold hands in public either unless there was an imminent and obvious threat. I wouldn’t advise a parent to remain at their tween’s side every time they go to a department store either, unless there was an obvious an imminent threat. Etc.

    We all have choices to make in our lives and have to measure the risk/benefit quotient for ourselves. In my hypothetical from comment #170/1 (my, that was a while ago, but feels like yesterday … oh, wait a minute, it was), I was inquiring to ILC if the benefits of linking to a sorry and disgusting blog such as Black Peoria were worth any potential risk down the line. He stated that his media-related ambitions do not lie much beyond his activity at GP: “Here’s a big hint for you, Iggy [and RVS, as I interpreted this as one of the "counts"]: I’m not that important. Never will be.” I don’t agree with that sentiment that he’s not important, but I must accept that is one that ILC has freely chosen.

    ILC has illustrated that he is not concerned, because he believes his words stand for themselves, and are free to be interpreted by anyone as they wish. And that’s fine. I know he’s not a racist from my experience with him, and this is a perfectly acceptable answer. Personally, I would have made another choice. But, that’s me. And, I’m not judging ILC the person for disagreeing (which I’ve been accused of already, so be it). He lives in a bit of an idealistic vacuum as far as this is concerned, which I can empathize with. I too stand up for what I believe and want my words to stand on their own merits. But, I also choose very carefully of who I align with, because that’s says as much about us as what we say.

    He provided a list of 57 names. Myself and Ignatius disagree with its relevancy to a point that was being made. ILC stands by his choice and asserts it was valid and necessary.

    Thank you, ILC. That is all I have to say, unless anyone else poses a question directed at me.

    Comment by Regards, Vince S. — April 26, 2013 @ 5:47 pm - April 26, 2013

  280. And then, of course, Vince Smetana namecalls and insults ILC.

    Hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2013 @ 8:40 pm - April 26, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.