Sometimes even the L.A. Times gets it right . . .
Dianne Feinstein: “All vets are mentally ill and government should prevent them from owning firearms”
Kurt Nimmo: “Senator Feinstein insults all U.S. Veterans as she flays about in a vain attempt to save her bill.”
Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times:
“Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re Number One. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ‘Macbeth’.
The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.”
— Columnist Burt Prelutsky, Los Angeles Times
Ditto. Quadruple ditto. No doubt Burt Prelutsky will soon be seeking employment.
Burt Prelutsky was never one to mince words.
They wouldn’t dare fire him, he’s a national treasure.
Amazing to find a columnist in the Loonie Leftie Media that actually seems to know what they’re talking about.
At least for this column, anyway . . . .
Why did you misquote Diane Feinstein in this article? Feinstein never said anything like “All vets are mentally ill and government should prevent them from owning firearms.”
“Q: Did Sen. Dianne Feinstein say all military veterans are mentally ill and should not be allowed to own guns?
A: No. She said veterans should not be exempt from her proposed assault weapons ban, citing post-traumatic stress disorder as a concern. She did not say all veterans suffer from PTSD or that all veterans should not own guns.”
http://factcheck.org/2013/04/twisting-feinsteins-words-on-military-vets/
Her concerns are not misplaced. The suicide rate of military veterans averages to 22 a day.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-vets-commit-suicide-alarming-rate-study-article-1.1253900
Chris you are asking the wrong person, I didn’t write the article. I only presented it for your consideration.
“The suicide rate of military veterans averages to 22 a day.”
That’s impossible…the media hasn’t hammered Obama with this statistic….it must be a lie. Besides, THE ONE is in charge of military operations…nothing bad ever happens, or can happen, when Democrats are in charge!
Feinstein is a hypocrite on this issue.
Chris, there’s some truth to this statement by Feinstein. It was stretched to make a point and for humor as Bill Mahr or Jon Stewart often do, but she did open the door for this jab when she said the following….
On March 7, 2013 Senator Feinstein addressed a Senate Judiciary Committee about the need for stricter gun control, noting the rise in cases of post traumatic stress disorder from the war in Iraq and saying, “that a veteran may be mentally ill and should be prevented from purchasing firearms.”
Tina: “That’s impossible…the media hasn’t hammered Obama with this statistic….it must be a lie.”
Jesus, is everything about partisan one-up-manship with you? I tell you that 22 military vets a day are killing themselves, and your first reaction is “Why aren’t the media blaming Obama for this?”
Get help.
Jack: “Chris, there’s some truth to this statement by Feinstein.”
No, there’s no truth to it whatsoever. No rational person could look at her statement and assume she is talking about ALL veterans. She is clearly talking about a subset of veterans who suffer from PTSD. And she didn’t even say that they should be prevented from owning firearms! She said that they shouldn’t get an exemption from the assault weapons ban just because they served in the military.
“It was stretched to make a point and for humor as Bill Mahr or Jon Stewart often do,”
You really don’t get the difference between satire and lying. I don’t know if the original author was clear that he was paraphrasing (you have, as usual, failed to provide a link to your source), but in this article there is nothing to indicate that it’s anything but a direct quote, straight from Feinstein’s own mouth. So either you thought it was a direct quote when you posted this, or you were being dishonest.
Furthermore, pretending that someone implied “ALL” when they clearly were talking about a specific subset of a group is not good satire, it’s just dishonest.
“but she did open the door for this jab when she said the following….
On March 7, 2013 Senator Feinstein addressed a Senate Judiciary Committee about the need for stricter gun control, noting the rise in cases of post traumatic stress disorder from the war in Iraq and saying, “that a veteran may be mentally ill and should be prevented from purchasing firearms.””
And you’re STILL misquoting her! Google the phrase you just attributed to Diane Feinstein and you will get a lot of hits, but you won’t find any record of her ever saying those words. It is another “paraphrase” created by conservative blogs.
The original source of the paraphrase seems to be Real Clear Politics, but it’s hard to tell because of the habit of conservative bloggers copying and pasting from each other without citing their sources, giving the whole thing a delightful chain e-mail quality. (I’m genuinely concerned about how and where you get your information.)
Finally, she did not say that veterans with PTSD “should be prevented from purchasing firearms.” She was specifically talking about an exemption to the assault weapons ban, and said nothing about other types of firearms.
Chris: “…is everything about partisan one-up-manship with you?”
I’m in a political and ideological fight for a country I love…all’s fair in this very partisan war…besides it was an obvious joke…a cynical joke yes, but a joke none the less. Too bad you didn’t appreciate it.
And by the way…you didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know regarding our veterans.
Have you read this ridiculous list?
Have you not paid attention to the idiocy of such tripe as referring to war as “overseas contingency operations”?
The whole point of this post is to highlight the inane way that radical elitist progressives speak and act so as to avoid being held responsible for anything.
The moral equivalent game that would put our veterans in the same camp as the evil jerks that fly planes into buildings because they believe they have a religious calling to take over the world for their god is not a game I wish to honor. In fact it deserves nothing short of derision and contempt.
“No rational person could look at her statement and assume she is talking about ALL veterans.”
You have an ugly propensity for calling others irrational in order to sell you position…good little progressive.
The remarks in question were made when Senator Cornyn’s proposed an amendment to exempt all veterans. This is the Feinstein quote made in response to Sen. Cornyn’s suggested amendment:
What a dingbat!
Notice she covertly blamed only the Iraq war (Bush) for the PTSD problem…
Gotta go…later.
PTSD is not a new phenom either and she’s old enough to know that.
I wonder how many people would die, if this bill was made law, because they were not allowed to have a weapon? There is no way to track those deaths or make them a sensational prop…and for what…power, votes, legacy?
How about they do something that will actually help all Americans do better financially? After four years of the same rotten failing plan this California woman “…do get wooly!”
Tina: “PTSD is not a new phenom either and she’s old enough to know that.”
See, that’s a legitimate criticism! Now you’re actually responding to something she said, instead of a made-up quote that she never said. Yay, progress?
“I wonder how many people would die, if this bill was made law, because they were not allowed to have a weapon?”
Aaaand we’re back to Nonsensetown. Tina, under Feinstein’s proposal, veterans would simply have to pass the same requirements of a background check as everyone else. You’ve told me that you don’t oppose existing background check laws, so…are you also worried about non-veterans dying because they can’t pass a background check? Or is it just veterans?
Tina: “Too bad you didn’t appreciate it.”
Yes, I’m a humorless scold for not appreciating your knee-slapping joke about veteran suicides.
“The whole point of this post is to highlight the inane way that radical elitist progressives speak and act so as to avoid being held responsible for anything.”
And had you stuck to highlighting the way that progressives speak, we wouldn’t be having this argument. Instead, this article opens with a made-up quote that doesn’t relate at all to what Feinstein has actually said. So this post isn’t about highlighting the way that progressives speak, it’s about making up things they never said and responding to that.
“The moral equivalent game that would put our veterans in the same camp as the evil jerks that fly planes into buildings because they believe they have a religious calling to take over the world for their god is not a game I wish to honor.”
What are you even talking about now? That’s not a “game” I play either, and I don’t know anyone who does.
“In fact it deserves nothing short of derision and contempt.”
Yes, strawman arguments usually are designed to do that.
“You have an ugly propensity for calling others irrational in order to sell you position…good little progressive.”
Tina, determining whether an argument is rational or irrational is not only a valid part of debate, it is a crucial one. There is nothing “ugly” about pointing out when an opponent’s argument is irrational.
It is irrational to look at a statement that clearly says “some” and then claim that said statement implies “all.” This is simply a fact. If you don’t get it, take a class in logic or something.
As usual, if you have a problem with me pointing out that your arguments are illogical or dishonest, the solution I recommend is for you to make more logical and honest arguments. The solution you propose is that I ignore when you are being blatantly irrational and dishonest, or that I use more politically correct language in dealing with this problem. I think my solution is clearly the more fair one.
Chris: “Yes, I’m a humorless scold for not appreciating your knee-slapping joke about veteran suicides.”
No nimrod, you’re a boring jerk with a chip on your shoulder and sizable resentment toward me that makes the joke about veterans (unreasonable since my support for them cannot be questioned) instead of the type of progressive that would lump veterans suffering from PTSD into the same category as terrorists.
Progressives refuse to “profile”. But have no trouble at all siding with this woman who would put a neat little generalized label on our veterans suffering from PTSD. You refuse to make distinctions…unless you need to profile white males, tea party supporters, Christians clinging to their guns and religion or any other group that you find politically inconvenient.
I’m too angry to respond further to your drivel.
Tina: “No nimrod, you’re a boring jerk with a chip on your shoulder and sizable resentment toward me that makes the joke about veterans (unreasonable since my support for them cannot be questioned) instead of the type of progressive that would lump veterans suffering from PTSD into the same category as terrorists.”
What on earth are you even talking about?
NO ONE has lumped veterans suffering from PTSD into the same category as terrorists. Not Diane Feinstein, and certainly not me. You literally just invented that right now.
And that definitely wasn’t what your “joke” was about. You wrote:
“That’s impossible…the media hasn’t hammered Obama with this statistic….it must be a lie.”
That statement has nothing to do with equating people with PTSD to terrorists. It has more to do with your (erroneuous, as I have shown you) belief that the media isn’t providing enough negative coverage of Obama. You can’t even follow your own thought process, and you wonder why I call you irrational?
“Progressives refuse to “profile”. But have no trouble at all siding with this woman who would put a neat little generalized label on our veterans suffering from PTSD.”
Again, you are simply making shit up. Feinstein never suggested any “label.” She was simply saying that veterans should not be exempted from the assault weapons ban, and brought up the high rate of PTSD among veterans as a reason why. Neither you nor Jack have engaged with her actual argument because you are too busy constructing strawmen.
“I’m too angry to respond further to your drivel.”
You’re too angry to form a coherent thought, not because of anything I’ve said, but because your default position when dealing with liberals is irrational anger. It doesn’t matter what I actually say, because you will twist it into a complete caricature of my actual position, just as your site chose to do when you began this post with a fake quote of Diane Feinstein, while giving no indication that it was anything but a legitimate quote.
You admit above that you see this as a “partisan war.” No wonder you’re so angry! You believe your opponents are evil, and that any tactics you use are justified. You complain about “Saul Alinsky tactics” one minute, then use and defend those very tactics the next. “All’s fair” as long as you think you can score a point in your little game of war.
If this is how you see our discussions, perhaps I should no longer participate here.
I want no part of your damned war.
I made a mistake in comment #11. Feinstein’s remarks were not about exemptions for veterans with regards to background checks, they were about exemptions for veterans in the assault weapons ban.
However, this only makes Tina’s remarks even more bizarre:
“I wonder how many people would die, if this bill was made law, because they were not allowed to have a weapon?”
Feinstein’s proposal was not about banning anyone from having “a weapon.” Again, her actual argument was that veterans should not get an automatic exemption from the assault weapons ban.
I would imagine the number of people who have died because they couldn’t buy an assault weapon–but could buy other types of guns–is pretty close to zero, and the number of veterans who have died because they couldn’t buy an assault weapon–but could buy other types of guns–is even closer.
Tina suggests that taking away the exemption for veterans in the assault weapons ban could lead to unnecessary death. This suggestion is not based on logic or evidence, and is pure emotional manipulation.