Lott Guns Down Costas!

[Pogo]

In fact....that makes the point about Costas saying by not saying.

Actually it just perpetuates the same fallacy you began with here, suggesting that my declining to opine (on a tract I didn't even bother to read) gives you carte blanche to insert your own conclusions. And that's the same hole you stepped in to get here.

I guess when you're into holes, a hole is a hole, right?

"When ignorance goes to fifty dollars a barrel, I want drilling rights on that man's head!" -- anonymous Texan

 

[PoliticalChic]

In fact....that makes the point about Costas saying by not saying.

Actually it just perpetuates the same fallacy you began with here, suggesting that my declining to opine (on a tract I didn't even bother to read) gives you carte blanche to insert your own conclusions. And that's the same hole you stepped in to get here.

I guess when you're into holes, a hole is a hole, right?

"When ignorance goes to fifty dollars a barrel, I want drilling rights on that man's head!" -- anonymous Texan

You're peddling harder than Ed Begley trying to make himself a piece of toast.

I even provided the times in the vid....yet you continue to deny.
Something irrational about that, huh?


But...that's pretty much how you guys roll.

 

[Pogo]

At :44, Costas: "Today, Jason Whitlock said it so well...".(that's 44 seconds, not .44 caliber)

At 1:09 'handguns do not enhance our safety, they exacerbate our flaws (then goes on to explain how they encourage shooting)'

So....ready to give it up?

Did I just burst your bubble?

Ahh- no, you just blew another one.
"Today, Jason Whitlock said it so well..." is not "blaming" -- it's crediting

Are you new to our language, or our planet?

1:09 underscores his point. And mine. And undermines yours.

 

[Dot Com]

In fact....that makes the point about Costas saying by not saying.

Actually it just perpetuates the same fallacy you began with here, suggesting that my declining to opine (on a tract I didn't even bother to read) gives you carte blanche to insert your own conclusions. And that's the same hole you stepped in to get here.

I guess when you're into holes, a hole is a hole, right?

"When ignorance goes to fifty dollars a barrel, I want drilling rights on that man's head!" -- anonymous Texan

Agreed. Stop PoliChic!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

At :44, Costas: "Today, Jason Whitlock said it so well...".(that's 44 seconds, not .44 caliber)

At 1:09 'handguns do not enhance our safety, they exacerbate our flaws (then goes on to explain how they encourage shooting)'

So....ready to give it up?

Did I just burst your bubble?

Ahh- no, you just blew another one.
"Today, Jason Whitlock said it so well..." is not "blaming" -- it's crediting

Are you new to our language, or our planet?

1:09 underscores his point. And mine. And undermines yours.

What is the matter with you?
Costas chose the quote, announced that he was endorsing same, i.e. "said it so well."

Does 'he said it so well...' and then go on to repeat what Whitlock said 'so well' mean he was agreeing or disagreeing with the sentiment, and the statement?
See what I mean.




Not only has your thesis been proven to be wrong by tiny, and myself….but Dotty agreeing with you is a priori proof of your error.




Don’t you think it makes more sense to simply make your gun control case directly?
Be direct...and stop embarrassing yourself.



Your south-of-sane position is puzzling.

This from way-Liberal Washington Post:
"He then paraphrased and quoted extensively from a piece by Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock.

After praising the column, Costas said: “In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows? But here, wrote Jason Whitlock, is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”
Bob Costas starts a gun control debate with halftime commentary - Washington Post

You appear to speak English....yet cannot process the import of the language.



A question....in a universe of blogs and columns....have you found some that support your position?
If not....what conclusion does that insinuate?
Get my drift?

 

[tinydancer]

I found this. So bang on the money.

From a piece at Hot Air:

Reason TV: Guns, head trauma, and macho culture didn’t kill Kasandra Perkins

Jovan Belcher’s suicide might have forced the question as to whether or not football has become too violent and punishing for its player, but killing his girlfriend elevates the action to something that cannot be justified by appeals to celebrity culture and pop psychology.

Or even readily explained by scientific research suggesting traumatic injury causes permanent brain damage and behavioral problems.

Killing your girlfriend is not a “behavioral problem”, it is a horrific, evil, cowardly act that is morally wrong to try to either explain or excuse through the science of battered brains.

Yet everyone seemed to want to blame Belcher’s actions on something else.

At CNN, former Democratic congressional candidate and Real World participant Kevin Powell talked about the problems of super-macho culture and the ready availability of guns.

Bob Costas lost his nut when he turned the Jovan Belcher tragedy into an anti-gun rant. Costas has fallen further off the rails than Powell if he thinks a gun-free Belcher home would have also shown an absence of violence or murder.

Instead of immediately reaching for our nearest ideological hobby horse, let’s stipulate an ugly truth:

Sometimes people are bad.

Brain injury did not pull the trigger that blew away both of Zoey Belcher’s parents one horrible Saturday morning.

Jovan Belcher did, and for that he will rightly be remembered not as a big man, but as a bad man.

Amen. Some one gets it.



Reason TV: Guns, head trauma, and macho culture didn’t kill Kasandra Perkins « Hot Air

 

[Pogo]

A question....in a universe of blogs and columns....have you found some that support your position?
If not....what conclusion does that insinuate?
Get my drift?

What it "insinuates"... umm... sit down my boy. This will be a revelation... is that I don't outsource my logic. I don't need it "validated" by some internet carnival barker. I roll my own.
Cool, huh? You might try it instead of sponging off the echo chambers. I'm not interested to go find mercenaries to do my battle or some squawk box to tell me what my opinion should be if I would only obediently follow. I'm already here, and I drove myself. Alone.

And if you're still standing after that bombshell, inventing headlines that are unrelated to the reality not only doesn't morph the reality into something it never was..... it's an old, old tactic. Tabloid newspapers have used it from time immoral. Like, say, the tabloid newspapers that Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox Noise from which you got this case of canards, made his fortune on.

You know, over in the Fox Sports thread the title was, "Whitlock, Costas Talk Gun Control". I quickly pointed out that not only was their headline equally disingenuous, but that Fox Sports is a competitor of NBC Sports, which employs Bob Costas.

Who saw that coming, huh?

Note that in our language, "Costas simply blames Whitlock" and "Costas chose the quote, announced that he was endorsing same, i.e. 'said it so well'" are two opposite positions.

And they're both yours. Such is the peril of Doublethink.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In fact....that makes the point about Costas saying by not saying.

Actually it just perpetuates the same fallacy you began with here, suggesting that my declining to opine (on a tract I didn't even bother to read) gives you carte blanche to insert your own conclusions. And that's the same hole you stepped in to get here.

I guess when you're into holes, a hole is a hole, right?

"When ignorance goes to fifty dollars a barrel, I want drilling rights on that man's head!" -- anonymous Texan

Agreed. Stop PoliChic!!!

Dotty....you came in handy in post #45!

Pogo had no idea that you're basically comic relief around here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Umm... sit down my boy. This will be a revelation...

I don't outsource my logic. I don't need it "validated" by some internet carnival barker. I roll my own.
Cool, huh? You might try it instead of sponging off the echo chambers.

And if you're still standing after that bombshell, inventing headlines that are unrelated to the reality not only doesn't morph the reality into something it never was..... it's an old, old tactic. Tabloid newspapers have used it from time immoral. Like, say, the tabloid newspapers that Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox Noise from which you got this case of canards, made his fortune on.

You know, over in the Fox Sports thread the title was, "Whitlock, Costas Talk Gun Control". I quickly pointed out that not only was their headline was equally disingenuous, but that Fox Sports is a competitor of NBC Sports, which employs Bob Costas.

Who saw that coming, huh?

'I don't need it "validated"' in this case, means you can't find anyone to agree with you, except the usual inmates.....your prize: you get to take Dotty home with you.

It's pretty rare when both sides of the aisle ease away from someone, as they have from Costas....


It’s OK if you disagree with me….I can’t force you to be right.



Looking foward to future tussles....hope you do just as well.

 

[Pogo]

'I don't need it "validated"' in this case, means you can't find anyone to agree with you...

Looking foward to future tussles....hope you do just as well.

Um.... I just said I don't need it validated. Why would I go looking for something I already know I don't need? When you find your lost keys, do you keep looking for them?

I gotta say, if this is the level of tussle, I need a board with more challenge. All you've done here is strawmanning followed by gainsaying. There's nary a word of debate here, nor can there be when you just run away and deny what the issue is

You've shown yourself to be one-dimensional; whether it's the gun control strawman or the tangent onto passages from Shakespeare, or now with the self-contradicting 'I don't need it "validated' in this case, means you can't find anyone to agree with you", everything you've done here suffers the same universal fatal flaw: denial of the reality of the words on the page and substitution of your own. That's rhetorical cowardice (and worse, a waste of my time).

When you're ready to deal with some issue on their own merits instead of transmogrifying into something else you'd rather deal with, let me know. Your entire premise for this thread is invalid and was from the beginning. Ask Bill O'Reilly.

 

[GWV5903]

We have meet the enemy and it is you.

Of course, you couldn't be more wrong.
...

Let me know if you need more help with this.

Thanks, I won't need that because before posting anything about this I actually read the entire transcript and the Whitlock article and watched the commentary. It isn't in there, period. Nothing about "laws", "restrictions", "controls", "bans" or "2nd amendment". Zero.

Inaccurate contrived headlines engineered to create controversy don't change the actual history of what was printed and spoken. They just don't.

Go ahead, don't take my word for it -- check me. Come back with quotes.

Rotsa ruck.

No luck needed, here is Whitlocks latest comment ...

I wrapped up my column with an ancillary point articulating my belief that America’s gun culture is out of control, dangerous and a threat to our liberty.

I further argued that our Second Amendment is outdated. The right to bear arms no longer protects us from a government armed with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks, nuclear weapons and all the other knickknacks James Madison and Co. couldn't envision when ratifying the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Bob Costas quoted and paraphrased my ancillary point during a courageous halftime commentary on NBC’s “Sunday Night Football.” He infuriated the right-wing entertainment media and gave Bill O’Reilly and his disciples the opening to pretend the Second Amendment is under some sort of serious attack. It is not. We just finished a hotly contested election cycle, and not one political candidate that I can think of uttered a single meaningful word about gun violence, gun control, gun culture and the outdatedness of the justification for the Second Amendment.

This issue is so dead in this country that the flag-waving, right-wing entertainment media have to drag up a non-political, non-voting sports columnist and a talented sports broadcaster as their straw men to justify their phony outrage. I don’t think I’ll be called before the Senate to speak on any toothless gun-control legislation the NRA lobby lets slip through a crack.

As for Costas, he is a left leaning sportscaster who happens to work for the most liberal news organization on the planet, basically he sucks and has for too many years, that's why he is still at NBC, no one else is interested in him...

 

[PoliticalChic]

'I don't need it "validated"' in this case, means you can't find anyone to agree with you...

Looking foward to future tussles....hope you do just as well.

Um.... I just said I don't need it validated. Why would I go looking for something I already know I don't need? When you find your lost keys, do you keep looking for them?

I gotta say, if this is the level of tussle, I need a board with more challenge. All you've done here is strawmanning followed by gainsaying. There's nary a word of debate here, nor can there be when you just run away and deny what the issue is

You've shown yourself to be one-dimensional; whether it's the gun control strawman or the tangent onto passages from Shakespeare, or now with the self-contradicting 'I don't need it "validated' in this case, means you can't find anyone to agree with you", everything you've done here suffers the same universal fatal flaw: denial of the reality of the words on the page and substitution of your own. That's rhetorical cowardice (and worse, a waste of my time).

When you're ready to deal with some issue on their own merits instead of transmogrifying into something else you'd rather deal with, let me know. Your entire premise for this thread is invalid and was from the beginning. Ask Bill O'Reilly.

You've been pretty much battered from pillar to post.....but don't use that as an excuse to leave the board.

Thumping your chest e.g., 'I don't need any other validation outside of my own opinion' pretty much admits it......

But...it was fun.

"I gotta say, if this is the level of tussle, I need a board with more challenge. All you've done here is strawmanning followed by gainsaying. There's nary a word of debate here, nor can there be when you just run away and deny what the issue is "
Weak.

"...let me know."


Yup.
You'll be sorely missed.


Hey....don't forget to take your 'prize' with you....

 

[Pogo]

I get it now. You're one of those "last word" freaks. Somehow you believe quantity makes for a valid argument.

Well, that would explain Shakespeare. It all makes sense now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I get it now. You're one of those "last word" freaks. Somehow you believe quantity makes for a valid argument.

Well, that would explain Shakespeare. It all makes sense now.

Am not!

 

[jillian]

Actually Costas didn't comment on "gun control" or gun laws. Never mentioned either one. Neither did the Whitlock column he quoted.

Rather, they spoke of the gun culture, which is an altogether different thing. I know a lot of wags jumped on the waggin' train to derail the commentary and pretend it was something it wasn't but there it is. The commentaries weren't about laws; they were about attitudes.

We have meet the enemy and it is you.


Of course, you couldn't be more wrong.

"Perhaps America's 90 million gunowners should be grateful to sports pundit Bob Costas for exposing how ignorant the mainstream media is about guns and gun laws in his now infamous 90-second halftime soundbite that serves as insightful commentary today.

Costas, quoting heavily during Dec. 2's Sunday Night Football halftime on NBC from a column by foxsports.com's Jason Whitlock about Kansas City Chiefs Jovan Belcher’s murder-suicide, ignored the crime and the victim, dismissed assigning blame to criminals who commit crimes, and opted instead to make an emotional appeal for gun control by exclusively blaming guns and the "gun culture" without mentioning domestic violence, NFL brain injuries, or substance abuse."
Bob Costas' Rant Exposes Ignorance of the Gun Control Lobby | Outdoor Life



"Bob Costas did a grave disservice to the world recently when he chose to redirect the discussion about Jovan Belcher’s murder-suicide to a rant on lax gun laws."
Bob Costas Gun Rant: The Blame Lies With Jovan Belcher, Not Guns


"I think it’s obvious if you’ve traveled abroad, and traveled to countries where they have legitimate gun laws,..."
Columnist Who Inspired Bob Costas Rant: 'The NRA Is The New KKK'


Let me know if you need more help with this.

Honey you're retarded sometimes. Costas specifically referred to "gun culture", not gun control. I know nuance is difficult for people on the extreme right, but there's a difference,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually Costas didn't comment on "gun control" or gun laws. Never mentioned either one. Neither did the Whitlock column he quoted.

Rather, they spoke of the gun culture, which is an altogether different thing. I know a lot of wags jumped on the waggin' train to derail the commentary and pretend it was something it wasn't but there it is. The commentaries weren't about laws; they were about attitudes.

Bull shit only gun grabbers use this as an argument against guns

“If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually Costas didn't comment on "gun control" or gun laws. Never mentioned either one. Neither did the Whitlock column he quoted.

Rather, they spoke of the gun culture, which is an altogether different thing. I know a lot of wags jumped on the waggin' train to derail the commentary and pretend it was something it wasn't but there it is. The commentaries weren't about laws; they were about attitudes.

We have meet the enemy and it is you.


Of course, you couldn't be more wrong.

"Perhaps America's 90 million gunowners should be grateful to sports pundit Bob Costas for exposing how ignorant the mainstream media is about guns and gun laws in his now infamous 90-second halftime soundbite that serves as insightful commentary today.

Costas, quoting heavily during Dec. 2's Sunday Night Football halftime on NBC from a column by foxsports.com's Jason Whitlock about Kansas City Chiefs Jovan Belcher’s murder-suicide, ignored the crime and the victim, dismissed assigning blame to criminals who commit crimes, and opted instead to make an emotional appeal for gun control by exclusively blaming guns and the "gun culture" without mentioning domestic violence, NFL brain injuries, or substance abuse."
Bob Costas' Rant Exposes Ignorance of the Gun Control Lobby | Outdoor Life



"Bob Costas did a grave disservice to the world recently when he chose to redirect the discussion about Jovan Belcher’s murder-suicide to a rant on lax gun laws."
Bob Costas Gun Rant: The Blame Lies With Jovan Belcher, Not Guns


"I think it’s obvious if you’ve traveled abroad, and traveled to countries where they have legitimate gun laws,..."
Columnist Who Inspired Bob Costas Rant: 'The NRA Is The New KKK'


Let me know if you need more help with this.

Honey you're retarded sometimes. Costas specifically referred to "gun culture", not gun control. I know nuance is difficult for people on the extreme right, but there's a difference,

Well Jillian what exactly did costas mean when he said this?
“If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually Costas didn't comment on "gun control" or gun laws. Never mentioned either one. Neither did the Whitlock column he quoted.

Rather, they spoke of the gun culture, which is an altogether different thing. I know a lot of wags jumped on the waggin' train to derail the commentary and pretend it was something it wasn't but there it is. The commentaries weren't about laws; they were about attitudes.

We have meet the enemy and it is you.


Of course, you couldn't be more wrong.

"Perhaps America's 90 million gunowners should be grateful to sports pundit Bob Costas for exposing how ignorant the mainstream media is about guns and gun laws in his now infamous 90-second halftime soundbite that serves as insightful commentary today.

Costas, quoting heavily during Dec. 2's Sunday Night Football halftime on NBC from a column by foxsports.com's Jason Whitlock about Kansas City Chiefs Jovan Belcher’s murder-suicide, ignored the crime and the victim, dismissed assigning blame to criminals who commit crimes, and opted instead to make an emotional appeal for gun control by exclusively blaming guns and the "gun culture" without mentioning domestic violence, NFL brain injuries, or substance abuse."
Bob Costas' Rant Exposes Ignorance of the Gun Control Lobby | Outdoor Life



"Bob Costas did a grave disservice to the world recently when he chose to redirect the discussion about Jovan Belcher’s murder-suicide to a rant on lax gun laws."
Bob Costas Gun Rant: The Blame Lies With Jovan Belcher, Not Guns


"I think it’s obvious if you’ve traveled abroad, and traveled to countries where they have legitimate gun laws,..."
Columnist Who Inspired Bob Costas Rant: 'The NRA Is The New KKK'


Let me know if you need more help with this.

Honey you're retarded sometimes. Costas specifically referred to "gun culture", not gun control. I know nuance is difficult for people on the extreme right, but there's a difference,

I'd like to return the compliment, but I don't use that term.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uOi7If0zW9s]Bob Costas on Gun Control following Jovan Belcher tragedy Sunday Night Half-Time Show Tribute - YouTube[/ame]

At :44, Costas: "Today, Jason Whitlock said it so well...".(that's 44 seconds, not .44 caliber)

At 1:09 'handguns do not enhance our safety, they exacerbate our flaws (then goes on to explain how they encourage shooting)'

 

[Pogo]

Well Jillian what exactly did costas mean when he said this?
“If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

FWIW I put forth my theories on this is posts 10 and 16. They remain back there unmolested.

Let's be honest and boil this down to what it really is. For the Church of the NRA the issue here isn't gun control or the Second Amendment. Clearly it isn't, since neither Costas nor the source he quoted brought that up, and they know it.

The issue here is blasphemy.

In proposing their analysis, the crime of Costas and Whitlock was that they dared to defy the prevailing dogma, suggesting that it might be possible that The Lord Our Gun might not be all He's cracked up to be, that maybe He's even not deserving of the deification His followers require of not only themselves but the entire national discourse. And for that crime of heresy, they react exactly as, say, an Islamic fundamentalist would react to Salman Rushdie: the infidel must be silenced (or fired, or executed, depending which thread you read) in defense of the vicious attack on Our Load.

It's what religious fanatics do, and the prescribed resolution is always the same. And free speech is always the first casualty.

Ironically all this hair-on-fire foaming at the mouth about Second Amendment issues that were never brought up serves only to demonstrate the reverse of their supposed position, and validate everything that Whitlock and Costas said. The hair-trigger mentality: shoot first, ask questions later. Post first, read the commentary and the nuance later.

Except they stopped short by terming it "gun culture". They should have just come out and said "gun religion".

 

[GWV5903]

Well Jillian what exactly did costas mean when he said this?
“If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

FWIW I put forth my theories on this is posts 10 and 16. They remain back there unmolested.

Let's be honest and boil this down to what it really is. For the Church of the NRA the issue here isn't gun control or the Second Amendment. Clearly it isn't, since neither Costas nor the source he quoted brought that up, and they know it.

The issue here is blasphemy.

In proposing their analysis, the crime of Costas and Whitlock was that they dared to defy the prevailing dogma, suggesting that it might be possible that The Lord Our Gun might not be all He's cracked up to be, that maybe He's even not deserving of the deification His followers require of not only themselves but the entire national discourse. And for that crime of heresy, they react exactly as, say, an Islamic fundamentalist would react to Salman Rushdie: the infidel must be silenced (or fired, or executed, depending which thread you read) in defense of the vicious attack on Our Load.

It's what religious fanatics do, and the prescribed resolution is always the same. And free speech is always the first casualty.

Ironically all this hair-on-fire foaming at the mouth about Second Amendment issues that were never brought up serves only to demonstrate the reverse of their supposed position, and validate everything that Whitlock and Costas said. The hair-trigger mentality: shoot first, ask questions later. Post first, read the commentary and the nuance later.

Except they stopped short by terming it "gun culture". They should have just come out and said "gun religion".

No the real issue here is you're an idiot...