“There are reasonable disagreements, and I respect that. But then there are things that come from every angle, where you just have to say to yourself ‘sometimes the quality of the thinking of those who oppose you speaks for itself.’ I was told — I didn’t see it — that someone compared this as a fire-able offense to situations in which people have made blatantly racist comments, or comments that had no place whatsoever....”Wow. Some pressure was exerted. Come on. It was bad, but it wasn't that bad.
December 4, 2012
Bob Costas struggles to find a proper place for himself.
He made a "mistake"... blah blah... no! He said something out of line with the beliefs of the people who watch TV football and thereby offended management. Here's some of the icky blather that leaked out:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
265 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 265 of 265I wonder if ARM saw the report about the three Dutch teens, ages 15-16 that beat a 41 year old linesman to death. I wonder if they had a history of violent crime.
gerry said...
That's what I thought about Costas and his challenged brain. A poor thinker and so, obviously, a sports commonpotator.
Mike Lupicka could have been talking so it could have been worse.
garage mahal said...
What I don't understand about the NRA is: they lie so much about firearms, why should anyone trust their opinion on firearms?
garage mahal wonders why anyone would trust someone who lies constantly. garage mahal wonders this.
What's The Matter With Bob Costas? women and men who are as weak as women like Bob Costas are beneficiaries of weapon technology. it's sad that in a world without weapons Bob Costas would be a victim, but it's the reality of human history.
"This particular talking point is so stupid that I am surprised it has hung around as long as it has. In this ideal world you envisage we will all be armed at all times and the quickest on the draw wins, just like the wild west. What a fucking garish nightmare."
During the days of the wild west east coast cities had much higher murder rates.
In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and
Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
In
Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.
Sounds pretty good to me. Try getting your "facts" from somewhere besides old TV shows.
garage mahal wonders why anyone would trust someone who lies constantly. garage mahal wonders this.
Yes. But he, somehow, puts his trust in Obama and the Democrats. Bizarre to the point of schizophrenic.
I heard someone say: "Don't blame Costas... this wouldn't have happened if he didn't have such ready access to a microphone."
AReasonableMan said...
And, for the record, I have shot a rifle in anger or at least in the general direction of a harmless animal. I have never owned a hand gun. I find them unmanly, despite having watched my share of westerns as a child.
You never miss an opportunity to reveal yourself as a complete dipshit on the Internet.
Contrary to popular belief, the Wild West was pretty tame by todays standards.
Yes, it was a fireable offense, and he should be fired over it.
He is a scum bag for using the tragic murder of an innocent woman to gratuitously advance his political desires (see OJ killing his wife if you think the guy couldn't have killed her w/o a gun).
He is an a**hole and a jerk for shoving his politics on the rest of us during a presumptively non-political gig.
You get hired to be a political commentator, and you're in a show where your audience is aware that you're there to make political comments? Great, spout away.
Another other time? STFU with the politics, or you should get fired. You don't have the right to waste our time.
ARM:
Since you posted quite a lot of comments since your polygamy is just like gun ownership "argument," I accept your ensuing silence as declining to defend it further. Admitting that your argument was dumb is classier, but I'll take what I can get.
And, as far as my being "out of touch" with my own religion...that idea seems utterly unmoored to anything. Rather than try to make sense of the statement, I'll let you do that.
I'll point out that the Catholic Faith rests pretty strongly on a Natural Law tradition, which includes natural rights--one of which is self-defense. So great a figure as Thomas Aquinas (who was Catholic in case you don't know) pointed out that at some point, it is permissible to disregard an unjust law, "which is no law at all."
So the moral premise is there for a Catholic to defy even a gun-control measure in certain circumstances. In recent years, many members of the Cristeros movement--those who resisted Mexican oppression by armed means--have been recognized as saints.
It may interest you to know that quite a lot of Catholics are gun owners, and that includes a fair number of priests.
So what was your argument again about my being so totally out of touch with my own church?
Colonel Angus said...
Hes being charged with murder. What do you want? Skip the trial and go straight to the gas chamber?
I was referring to posters on this board who seem unable to bring themselves to make any negative comment about his behavior whatsoever.
I do notice though that you apparently have no problem with the teens who broke into his house.
I said they were idiots, in contrast to all the people who have reflexively and unthinkingly defended Mr Smith. I don't think someone should be killed simply because they did something idiotic when they were seventeen. If that was the case there would be many few of us.
Fr Martin Fox said...
So what was your argument again about my being so totally out of touch with my own church?
I said your religion not your church. Big difference.
ARM said:
"I said your religion not your church. Big difference."
Really? Explain my own religious beliefs to me. Please don't be shy.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Since you posted quite a lot of comments since your polygamy is just like gun ownership "argument," I accept your ensuing silence as declining to defend it further. Admitting that your argument was dumb is classier, but I'll take what I can get.
Your argument was very simple and very dumb, despite your subsequent attempts to dress it up. You said we can't do anything to limit the spread of guns so let's allow carte blanche.
As I pointed out, we are unable to eliminate a broad range of anti-social behaviors yet we remain a nation of laws. The particular idiocy of you argument is that very similar countries to ours have in fact greatly reduced gun violence simply by limiting the supply of guns. It is not a particularly hard problem for others.
"Those teenagers were white, two cousins, she was pretty and he was handsome."
Yea, like that makes a difference when they break into someones house. Very shallow emoting going on in that sentence.
What it shows is that the gun owner isn't a racist. He'll shoot white people who break into his house too.
ARM:
Ok, then I ask again: please support your contention that underage sex, polygamy and incest occur in prisons? Because my point was that gun control fails in prisons, and you brought up those three items.
Please support this claim with facts.
And, by the way, you don't get to mischaracterize my argument. I did not say, "You said we can't do anything to limit the spread of guns so let's allow carte blanche."
Let's recall what I actually said:
Let me pose this question: is it not true that guns are smuggled into prisons? Or fabricated from within?
If this is true--and I seem to recall plenty of stories to this effect--then the only way gun control can work is if the entire country becomes more of a prison than our prisons are.
Otherwise, there will always be guns--and common sense says plenty of them--in this country.
All gun control could accomplish is to make ordinary people resort to crime in order to be safe.
Or else we can live in the bestest prison ever!
Now, I'm sorry I'm being too subtle for you, so I'll spell it out.
I have no doubt that gun control can reduce the number of guns in circulation, and it can affect who owns guns and what guns they own.
But the point I made--and which I invite you to dispute--is that gun control will be much more effective in restricting gun ownership by law-abiding folks, and less so for law-defying folks.
Or will you argue that people who commit crime will be as likely to obey gun control laws as people who are law-abiding? Feel free to explain that one.
I might point out that you then proceeded to equate the right of self defense to a "right" to have "underage sex, incest and polygamy."
I'm still waiting for you to flesh out that argument.
Fr Martin Fox said...
So what was your argument again about my being so totally out of touch with my own church?."
I didn't check this because I am so despondent about the state of our nation on gun control but you are also out of step with your church. Catholics, bless their souls, are one group who favor stricter gun control (59%, 2011 ABC News/Washington Post ).
As has often proved to be the case, the catholic laity have a lot more sense than their leaders.
Stricter gun control, and the policies advocated that are often pushed for, are sometimes different. I also notice you haven't addressed the fact that the murder rate in the "wild west" was much lower than today's, yet you hold it up as a terrible place with shootings left and right. Historical illiteracy is a terrible thing.
ARM:
I'm sorry--I missed your citation of something in Catholic teaching that says every Catholic has to think the same things on gun control?
And I missed the part about how poll results are relevant to what it means to be Catholic?
Again, when you make a point of saying other people make silly arguments, it's a bad strategy to make silly arguments yourself.
Also, explain how I am wrong to equate my religion with my church? Because, well, for Catholics, it's the same.
But you are well able to tell me I'm wrong about that, so please proceed?
ARM:
And a response to following (from yesterday) would be enlightening:
So, to keep it simple for you, of all the things you compared to guns, guns are extremely useful, and of that set, necessary.
Perhaps you can explain the similar rationale for "underage sex, incest and polygamy"? What natural right to you maintain anyone has for those things? How is it that anyone's safety demands them?
...
Finally, your attempt at a masterful argument fails in one more way. I used the argument that gun control fails to keep guns out of prisons--and you inferred, it seems, that I'm saying anything that can't be kept out of prisons should therefore be legalized.
So why did you include "underage sex and polygamy" on your list? Are you suggesting prison regulations fail to keep these things out? That is a remarkable thing, if true: children and multiple wives smuggled into prisons!
Matthew Sablan said...
Historical illiteracy is a terrible thing.
Yes it is.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html
You're the one who said: "In this ideal world you envisage we will all be armed at all times and the quickest on the draw wins, just like the wild west. What a fucking garish nightmare."
I was the one pointing out that is not, at all, what the Wild West was like.
P.S., Creating strawmen to dramatically knock down is lame. You're smart, act it.
Fr Martin,
Notice ARMs reliance on collectivism in thought as moral weight, in and of itself. LOTS of Catholics are for gun control, therefore it's good. This moral weight only goes in one direction, of course, and that is when it supports leftist policy. He will not acknowlege any sort of moral weight to popular opinion that rejects leftist policy, like majority opinion concering ObamaCare or Affirmative Actions racist picking and choosing by skim color.
guns are extremely useful, and of that set, necessary.
Morphine is extremely useful yet difficult to control. By your 'logic' regarding gun control we should just abandon any attempt to control morphine.
Abortions are extremely useful. Spontaneous abortions are so common that more pregnancies end this way than any other. They are Nature's way of dealing with the myriad things that can go wrong during embryonic development. Medically administered abortions can save the life of a pregnant woman. Abortions are difficult to control. By your 'logic' regarding gun control we should just abandon any attempt to control abortions.
SGT Ted said...
Notice ARMs reliance on collectivism in thought as moral weight,
This is ironic given the obsessive way that the NRA has attempted to sway public opinion on this issue.
Humperdink,
Absolutely, the end goal of most of the folks push the AWB was complete disarmament, for sure.
But that's not what the AWB itself did, and the sort of speaking fast-and-loose with the facts ("semi automatic weapons were once banned" vs "the restrictions on features meant sales of some newly-manufactured models was prohibited") is exactly what I'm talking about--it lets gun-control proponents point at your statement and say you're wrong... and they'd be right! Why give them that ammo?
Or did I just not include enough disclaimers that I thought the AWB was bad in what it did do?
I am not reflexively anti-gun. Farmers need guns, I have relatives who used to own farms and that is where I first used a rifle. Anyone traveling by foot in areas where there are large bears is stupid not to carry a rifle.
No one living in the city or suburbia 'needs' a gun. In my ongoing battle with the local raccoons I finally trapped the alpha male. I got someone to shoot him. So, in twenty years of living in the suburbs, I needed a gun once and found someone professionally licensed to shoot raccoons in about a minute of searching. I don't 'need' a gun.
What I believe to be insane is the personal arms race that we are currently engaged in where more and ever larger guns are purchased in large part simply to ameliorate paranoid fearfulness of our fellow citizens.
Currently the US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That is first in the world for gun ownership. It doesn't take much of a leap of logic to suggest that we probably have overshot the point of diminishing returns for gun ownership and personal safety.
There is no evidence that our ever expanding gun ownership and rights is improving personal safety.
"What I believe to be insane is the personal arms race that we are currently engaged in where more and ever larger guns are purchased in large part simply to ameliorate paranoid fearfulness of our fellow citizens."
-- Are you aware of how often guns are successfully used in self-defense?
"There is no evidence that our ever expanding gun ownership and rights is improving personal safety."
Have you read probably the most authoritative and thorough book on the subject that, uh, basically says you're wrong? If you haven't read it, read it, then we'll circle back up.
And yet another of the left's useful idiots spikes a thread.
To sum up:
1. Althouse posts a story about the effeminate little weasel Bob Costas semi-walking back his idiotic statements.
2. ARM goes off on a tangent about a home invasion shooting, gets pointed out he is an idiot (and probably a sexist and racist due to his "pretty white people" argument)
3. Thread hijacked.
Bob Costas is a mealy mouthed little pusssy who is heading the in direction of another failed sportscaster, Keith Olbermman.
A reasonable man is neither reasonable, nor a man in any sense of the word.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
A reasonable man is neither reasonable, nor a man in any sense of the word.
Mon-Jeans acting tough on the internet.
"I don't think someone should be killed simply because they did something idiotic when they were seventeen."
Breaking and entering isn't "something idiotic," it's a felony.
"Those teenagers were white, two cousins, she was pretty and he was handsome."
"One of the teenagers was a girl. He probably could have gone 'boo' and they would have run away. "
So ARM has demonstrated that he is both racist and sexist (not to mention not all that bright) in this comment thread.
On the internet, all you have are your words.
Your words speak for themselves. Would the shooting have been justified if they had been ugly people who weren't melanin deficient?
Own it, skippy.
AReasonableMan said...
There is no evidence that our ever expanding gun ownership and rights is improving personal safety.
You are a profile in ignorance and frankly, stupidity.
Note:
The last time the crime rate for serious crime – murder, rape, robbery, assault – fell to these levels, gasoline cost 29 cents a gallon and the average income for a working American was $5,807.
...
In the past 20 years, for instance, the murder rate in the United States has dropped by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 in 2009. Meanwhile, robberies were down 10 percent in 2010 from the year before and 8 percent in 2009.
Note:
From 2006 to 2011, the total number of guns purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent, while the total number of gun-related violent crimes decreased 24 percent over that period. And when adjusted for population growth, the number of crimes further decreases to more than 27 percent, with 79 gun-related offenses per 100,000 in 2006 dropping to 57 by 2011
You don't have the self-awareness to stop making this fucking idiotic assertions.
Don't worry, you'll have some lame brained response.
There is no evidence that our ever expanding gun ownership and rights is improving personal safety.
There is no evidence you have one utter fucking clue what you're talking about.
You could like shut up, which would be far more beneficial to your point of view rather than making an utter fool of yourself.
But you won't.
No one living in the city or suburbia 'needs' a gun. In my ongoing battle with the local raccoons I finally trapped the alpha male. I got someone to shoot him.
This is how you justify your logic that no one in a city or suburbs needs a gun?? Ridiculous.
Are you trying to suggest that crime no longer exists in the city and suburbs? Those who would commit crimes would not care if they obtain a gun illegally. How are you going to protect yourself should you be confronted by an armed intruder?
Just because it never happened to you doesn't mean it never happens nor will ever happen.
Now that you bring it up let's go back to the execrable Mr Byron David Smith. Is it really the case that no one is willing to condemn his behavior.
One more time:
Smith said he fired when Schaeffel came into view from the waist down. After the teen fell down the stairs, Smith said he shot him in the face as he lay on the floor. "I want him dead," the complaint quoted Smith telling an investigator.
Smith told investigators he shot 18-year-old Haile Kifer several times as she descended a stairway into his basement, and his Mini 14 rifle jammed as he tried to shoot her again after she had tumbled down the steps. Though Kifer was "already hurting," she let out a short laugh, Smith told investigators. He then pulled out his .22-caliber revolver and shot her several times in the chest, according to the complaint. After shooting her with both the Mini 14 and the .22-caliber revolver, he dragged her next to Schaeffel. With her still gasping for air, he fired a shot under her chin "up into the cranium". Smith described it as "a good clean finishing shot".
"If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again," Smith told investigators, according to a criminal complaint filed Monday.
It is incredible to me that people want to defend this thug. He may be old he is not beyond the bounds of normal moral calculus.
AReasonableMan said...
No one living in the city or suburbia 'needs' a gun
You should tell that to the guy living in Connecticut who had his home broken into by 3 men who proceded to shoot him in the head (he lived) after they raped his wife and 16 & 14 year old daughters in front of him and then shot them to death.
Look, you're a fucking moron. You've long past the point of seriousness or being informed.
So at least there is that.
Jay, serious crime has declined in most western countries, including those with strict gun laws.There are multiple causes but he most important is demographics, young men commit most of these crimes and there are fewer young men as a percentage of the population
President-Mom-Jeans said...
Own it, skippy.
More tough talk from Mom-Jeans.
Now that you bring it up let's go back to the execrable Mr Byron David Smith. Is it really the case that no one is willing to condemn his behavior.
ARM, commenters here have already done so, just not to the point that you apparently want. You would be hard-pressed to find a commenter on this thread agree that shooting an already shot and known unarmed intruder, that no longer posed any threat to you, was justified. Most would say it was abhorrent.
However, most would agree this man was clearly justified when he initially fired on the criminals, however if the facts of the case are true and he continued in the manner that this story suggests then he should be tried and convicted in a court of law.
Which is exactly what is happening, right?
i think it's noble that you all have chosen to take the time to try to educate ARM on the difference between a law abiding citizen and a criminal. Unfortunately you're dealing with a leftist, so to him there is no distinction. If you own a gun it's only a matter of time before you get mad and kill someone.
Jay said...
You should tell that to the guy living in Connecticut who had his home broken into by 3 men who proceded to shoot him in the head (he lived) after they raped his wife and 16 & 14 year old daughters in front of him and then shot them to death.
This is terrible crime and the perpetrators should go to jail for life, as should Mr Smith.
But think realistically about the situation. In a home invasion you have no warning that it is about to occur. To effectively defend yourself you would have to be literally armed at all times. Who really does this? A much more likely scenario is that the gun is stored somewhere and your depressed teenaged daughter shoots herself with it one Saturday night alone.
jrberg3 said...
ARM, commenters here have already done so, just not to the point that you apparently want. You would be hard-pressed to find a commenter on this thread agree that shooting an already shot and known unarmed intruder, that no longer posed any threat to you, was justified. Most would say it was abhorrent.
However, most would agree this man was clearly justified when he initially fired on the criminals, however if the facts of the case are true and he continued in the manner that this story suggests then he should be tried and convicted in a court of law.
Finally, a reasonable man. My work is done. I doubt that he needed to shoot these kids in the first place but I am not going to quibble at this point.
In fact multiple commentators have rationalized and excused his behavior, to ludicrous degrees in some cases.
AReasonableMan said...
Jay, serious crime has declined in most western countries, including those with strict gun laws.There are multiple causes but he most important is demographics, young men commit most of these crimes and there are fewer young men as a percentage of the population
Complete & utter bullshit.
Note: there has been a surge in firearms sales in America and a corresponding decline in violent crime.
You idiotically asserted there no evidence that our ever expanding gun ownership and rights is improving personal safety
As I said, when provided evidence you will have a silly response.
AReasonableMan said...
Jay, serious crime has declined in most western countries, including those with strict gun laws
You are silly and full of shit.
Note:
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
Note:
In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
•In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Don't worry, you don't have the intelligence or self-awareness to stop.
Also note, I'm providing references and you're making mealy mouthed assertions that are stupid beyond belief.
AReasonableMan said...
But think realistically about the situation. In a home invasion you have no warning that it is about to occur. To effectively defend yourself you would have to be literally armed at all times
What silly, idiotic drivel.
Why don't you just stop?
In fact multiple commentators have rationalized and excused his behavior, to ludicrous degrees in some cases.
No one has rationalized his behavior, that is a lie. There have been comments stipulating that we should wait until all the facts come out and do so in a court of law.
My opinions do not vary much from those of Shouting Thomas and Synova, two who have engaged with your comments here about this case.
But think realistically about the situation. In a home invasion you have no warning that it is about to occur.
Really?? What about the sound of a broken window or a busted door or a dog barking at an odd time? What about hearing noises in the house in the middle of the night? Your statement is just so patently absurd it's hard to figure out how you could think this.
To effectively defend yourself you would have to be literally armed at all times. Who really does this?
Someone with a CC permit.
A much more likely scenario is that the gun is stored somewhere and your depressed teenaged daughter shoots herself with it one Saturday night alone.
Nice. Why don't we just make up stuff, oh wait, you clearly already do. One wonders what your thoughts would be if you have had experience with these types of break-ins or knew someone close who had.
ARM:
Your point about morphine demonstrates that you don't actually read the arguments you claim to rebut. I made the point yesterday that I think that if a drug can be palliative, and a law prevents someone who needs it, from getting it, the law is wrong.
Meanwhile, you have spent an incredible amount of energy rebutting an argument I never made.
Please use my own words to show where I ever said that a law that can be evaded is not worth having at all.
My point about gun control is that it can't succeed in getting *all* the guns; and therefore, its effect will be a hindrance to people's safety, because those who are more prone to obey gun control laws (actually, I think I said "gun-grabbing"--and for a good reason) are those who are disposed to obey laws; while those who don't obey laws will have more guns.
But if you wish, you go right ahead and rebut an argument I did not make--that laws that can't prevent everything they aim to prevent are therefore not worth having at all--but until you can show that it's my argument, quit pretending you're responding to me.
Again--if you want to make the point that other people are stupid because they make stupid arguments, then be doubly sure you don't make stupid arguments (including stupid assumptions) yourself.
And I'm still waiting for you to show how a poll result has any relevance to what my religion professes? How does citing a poll show that I am out of touch with my own religion?
I concede I can't make anything of that attempt at an argument, so I rely on you to connect those dots.
And, I might as well point out the obvious: I'm not aware of anyone who actually advocates *no* gun laws.
I may be wrong, but I think even very libertarian folks will readily agree to having some laws that say some people can't get guns. Certainly I am in favor of some laws in that regard. And if want to claim you didn't know that, you're either pretty dim or pretty disingenuous.
As I said, my use of "gun grabbing" was purposeful; what I oppose is taking guns from people who have a natural right to them, or preventing them from having access to them unless they are willing to break the law.
The only possible way such "gun removal" can be moral is if the government can assure people they actually won't need them for self-defense--ever. And if governments ever make such claims, they are lying. Hence my use of the prison illustration. If the government can't keep guns out of a prison, then they can't credibly assure law-abiding citizens that they won't ever have to worry about assaults from people with guns.
Heck, if you wanted to show a flaw in my argument, here it is: it wouldn't be sufficient for government to demonstrate it can create a gun-free culture, for it to justify denying people guns for self-protection.
The government--to have a moral case--would have to go further; it would have to assure its citizens, that they would never face any peril that might require a gun. And that would, logically, include perils beyond only guns wielded by criminals.
As must be obvious, a criminal with a bludgeon, a knife, a car, a power drill, a chainsaw, or just his or her own bodily strength, can easily be a mortal threat to lots and lots of people.
Those people have a natural right to the means suitable to defend themselves. If government is going to deny them those means, government assumes the responsibility for securing their safety.
How in the world could any government ever keep that promise, to wit: we are taking your guns, but it's not immoral, because we can assure you, you will NEVER need them?
That's the argument, which for all claims of being so possessed of reason, while I'm so stoopid, you haven't even dealt with.
You'd much rather claim that Catholic doctrine somehow is determined by poll results. Still waiting for that explanation.
I missed this discussion. It seems to have gone far afield from the premise of Bob Costas almost losing his job because of what he said about guns.
Of course I do not think he should lose his job because of what he said. He is a far left liberal like many sportscasters who are part and parcel of the main stream media. He would never have been as successful as he was in the New York media unless he was a clone of the liberal mindset. Like Marv Albert. Keith Olberman. Dick Schaap. Frank Deford. Mike Lupica. The list goes on and on.
These guys who are ultraliberals who work in sports sort of have to keep their political opinions to themselves if they want to remain popular with the general public who follow sports. Or at least a majority segment of them who are more conservative, older and whiter than your MTV viewers. Once they get too vocal or get caught singing show tunes in black panties with prostitutes then they will lose their gig.
As Michael Jordan once said "Republicans buy shoes too."
Maybe Bob Costas should keep his personal opinions off this telecast and save it for when he posts here as "A Reasonable Man."
Not really addressing this to AMostUNreasonableMan, it's more for the onlookers:
"To effectively defend yourself you would have to be literally armed at all times. Who really does this?"
Me.
It's easy.
I own a small semiauto pistol in .380 caliber (aka a "pocket pistol".) It goes into my pocket* when I get up in the morning, and back into the nightstand drawer at night. It's no bigger or bulkier than a wallet, and far smaller than the immense keyrings that some folks carry around.
No hassle, no hindrance, no trouble, no effort, but it's there when I need it.
I do own other handguns, and carry them as the situation warrants, but this one is literally with me all the time when it is legal to do so.
---------------------------------
*In a proper pocket holster that covers the trigger, of course.
I do think it is perfectly reasonable for the viewing public to voice their opinion that they will not buy products that are associated with Bob Costas. He is entitled to his opinion but you should not subsidize it if you feel he is as out of bounds as many feel about this nonsense.
There are many movies or TV shows I skip because of the actors involved. You aren't missing anything. It is mostly ludicrous left wing pap anyway. There are plenty of reality shows with real Americans like Honey Boo Boo or the "Real Housewives of New Jersey" or "American Pickers." Or that two headed girl who is about to go on her first date. Or dates. Or whatever. You can give that anti-american spy movie with George Clooney a pass or not tune into the latest HBO special that is out and out Democratic Party propaganda. You really are not missing anything worthwhile.
As far as Costas goes......just put on the radio. It is always much better than the TV announcers.
Kirk:
I would say this: for ARM to argue you "must" be so armed, at all times, is silly. The question really is, ought you to be able to do so?
And, as I see it, it is no concern of his, or the government's, that you may choose for many reasons, not to carry a weapon "all" the time. Given other choices you make in life, that may be very inconvenient or unwise.
But should the government prevent you from being sufficiently armed?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ...
If it is self-evident that we have an inalienable right to life, then does this not imply that we have an inalienable right to defend our lives from those who would wish to extinguish our lives?
AReasonableMan said...
I was referring to posters on this board who seem unable to bring themselves to make any negative comment about his behavior whatsoever.
I do notice though that you apparently have no problem with the teens who broke into his house.
I said they were idiots, in contrast to all the people who have reflexively and unthinkingly defended Mr Smith.
Those here are not unthinkingly defending Smith. They are silent because they do think and thus realize they don't know all the facts required to judge. But since ARM has never let ignorance interfere with his judgments he gamely presses on.
I for one am happy to provide ARM, and all others who ever say, "why don't you condemn ____?" the following "all purpose moral disapproval coupon.
Here it is:
*****************
* I disapprove! *
*****************
Whenever you feel a need for me to express disapproval about something, please don't get worked up; just use the coupon.
Don't worry! It has no expiration date, and you can use it as often as you like--whenever you feel an absence of me, or others, expressing whatever moral disapproval you sense is urgently needed.
You don't even to break glass!
Fr. Martin,
I was reading ARM's statement differently, i.e. "you would have to be armed" meaning as a logical necessity--to protect yourself at all times, you would need to be armed at all times. I merely wanted to illustrate that with today's technology this is a trivial burden.
I quite agree with you that it's no concern of the government's if you are or aren't.
" if the entire country becomes more of a prison than our prisons are. "
Between the TSA, warrantless wiretaps, license-plate and now facial recognition cameras, RFID tracking high schoolers, etc., this transformation is well underway.
Reasonable, clearly you want us to pronounce judgement on *this* event with 20/20 hindsight.
No one that I noticed said anything different than the person you announced had finally proven himself "a reasonable man." More than once I said that he might get convicted of murder for the way he went about it all, but that shooting home intruders was self defense.
You hear what you want to hear.
The fact of life (and death) is that at the point a person can tell if their invaders are kids on a lark or hardened murderous rapists... it's too late. And while no one has even intimated that the teenagers deserved to die, no homeowner is required to die for them.
Because that's what it is. It's letting yourself be shot and your wife and daughters raped and murdered because there may be a couple of pretty white kids looking for drug money who don't actually deserve to be killed. And since you don't KNOW... you chose the life of the home invader over your own and those of your family? No.
You can't HEAR this, so what you hear is people defending some guy who explained how the girl laughed so he shot her again.
But the thing of it is... if this guy just shot her once, but had better aim, and called 9-11 immediately... she still wouldn't *deserve* to die, but she'd still be dead. The senselessness of her death would be just as great, her tragedy just as complete. HER story doesn't depend on if Smith is a lunatic or not. Smith's story does, but not hers and not her cousin's.
"A much more likely scenario is that the gun is stored somewhere and your depressed teenaged daughter shoots herself with it one Saturday night alone."
Actually your depressed daughter is significantly more likely to slit her wrists or down all those prescription meds in your bathroom for her suicide.
Too bad Costas didn't speak about how a black male off'd his baby momma after a drunken night banging another black woman. Because its the gun culture that is the root cause of this murder-suicide. No other cultural issues could be pointed to...
Costas want's American's to give up their gun mentality and guns. One wonders if we do, will he will give up his armed body guards from the press box to the limo? I doubt it.
Post a Comment