« Happy Hour News Briefs | Main | One of those days... »

April 19, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf82953ef017d42f40f99970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Remember: this jackwagon allegedly studied law.:

Comments

The first thing we want to do is to tell Linda Graham to remain silent.

First of all , Miranda rights, as the Supreme Court has stated means that no evidence garnered from a suspect's statement can be used against him/her if they didn't have counsel before they made their confession (?). I'm just guessing here but I think there is enough evidence without a confession if they have the correct people... This is mute under the Federal terrorist (for lack of a better term) legislation. Under this legislation, they do not have to read them 'no' rights..... ( Not my law, do not blame me) - Second , Graham Cracker knows damn well what I know. This is just code words to his peeps. That the bombing was an Obama black ops.

Never let it be said that Miss Lindsey would ever let pass a chance at political opportunism.

And he keeps on proving it, over and over and over again.

Not a closeted jackwagon. More like a closeted pillow biter.

For the esteemed Senator, this is less of a tragedy than it is an opportunity to act butch.

As appalling as Lindsey Graham is, I think we should refrain from perpetuating sexual-preference stereotypes by referring to him as "Miss Lindsey" or "Linda." It's really s no different than referring to him as "that f@ag Graham."

" I think we should refrain from perpetuating sexual-preference stereotypes...."

Sorry, I make exceptions for phonies, creeps and dilettantes, and the Senator in question deserves all those appellations and more.

Sorry, montag, by making "exceptions for phonies, creeps and dilettantes," you perpetuate stereotypes which hurt those who you exclude from those categories. It's inexcusable and wrong. You are no better than the person who calls another person a f@g or a f@ggot or a queer for no other reason than that they walk, talk or live differently. If you can't see that, I feel very sorry for those around you.

@ Karen
You're right. Thank you for the correction.

Well, km, you go on believing that Mr. Graham deserves the treatment you are willing to afford him.

But don't lecture me on civility and tell me I have to respect someone who has happily tried to set back civilization a few hundred years simply to protect his political ambitions. I'm not that forgiving.

Getting back to Jackwad in Watertown, we should treat him as the common criminal he is. Treating him as an enemy combatant merely legitimizes his actions, and martyrs him in the eyes of those who wish us harm. By treating as nothing more than a mugger or purse-snatcher, we are denying him what he craves most: fame. Lock his ass up forever, and never, EVER mention his name or that of his brother ever again. Abandon him to the abyss of oblivion, and let him rot in solitary anonymity.

And Montag, I'm with you 150%. Karen, you are entitled to your beliefs, but Montag is entitled to his. And I agree with him. Sorry.

montag, mr618, I'm not talking about the respect that Graham deserves, because I agree he deserves none, I'm talking about the respect that LGBT people deserve. When you call Graham a Nancy boy or limp wristed, you are saying very clearly that there is something wrong with being LGBT.

The issues with Graham have nothing to do with whether he is gay. But by your refusal to acknowledge the wrongness of your language here, I'm going to assume you think it's okay to use phrases like "n!gger rigging" and "J#w down" in normal conversation.

As much as I love montag, I have to give Karen my support on this issue. I'm one who offends in this manner quite often and I'm often reminded by some very close friends of my hypocrisy.

To me, if in my rage in their offense against us, if I use the language of degradation that only has legitimatacy within the sphere of oppression from which it came, then how can we claim to be resisting oppression? Are we not by our use of such language granting such power, even if by proxy in our minds?

Also, I agree, labeling the bomber as an "enemy combatant" only serves to elevete the criminal act to one of a higher purpose and meaning, thus pulling the entire act to full completion a true "terrorist" would desire. But I'm afraid that the lust to use this as an opportunity to further erode our constitional protections and/or make cheap political points far outweighs any lust for true justice, or for that matter defusing the supposed ambition of terrorists.

But then again, I'd say that possibly if we're interested in rooting out 'terrorism' (if this act can be proven to be such), then maybe we'd want to look at our foreign policy and economic priorities.

The comments to this entry are closed.




blog advertising is good for you

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30