Shooting at Elementary School in Georgia

Comments

I'm so sorry your country and its people are beyond rehabilitation and repair. All that money and none of it going to mental health treatment for people who need it.

on August 20, 2013 at 10:47 AM

One shot fired, not sure if it was inside or outside, nobody hurt, gunman in custody. There really isn't anything to see here.

Fifty-Two-Eighty on August 20, 2013 at 11:08 AM

To be fair, guns are generally prohibited on school grounds.

If a guy is going to shoot up, or rob, a place, a placard with "no guns allowed" isn't really going to deter him.

TheMisanthrope on August 20, 2013 at 11:08 AM

@5: but a sign WOULD have stopped law-abiding, CCW-ing 5280 and his ilk from defending the children. which they totally would otherwise have done. except for the sign.

so yeah, nothing to see. just another gun fired at an elementary school in the wake of newtown.

Max Solomon on August 20, 2013 at 11:18 AM

WSB TV reported that the suspected gunman is a white male in his 20s who was armed with an AK-47.

http://decatur.patch.com/groups/police-a…

Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on August 20, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Dan's opinion would have been different if those children or their parents had been "Islamo-Fascists". Their lives just are not worth the same as the life of an American child.

Say "YES" to War on Iraq - Oct 23, 2002
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…

fairly.unbalanced on August 20, 2013 at 11:41 AM

@8: The difference between Dan and you? Dan is capable of admitting that he was wrong. As regards the war in Iraq, he has done just that. Publicly. REPEATEDLY.

http://vimeo.com/69554806

Using his decade-old now-repudiated position on an issue as indicative of his current thinking is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Backyard Bombardier on August 20, 2013 at 12:11 PM

@9 Funny how that apology 10 years after the fact has never been posted to SLOG by a Stranger staffer, though. I mean I'm glad he FINALLY admitted it. But he's been pretty quiet about it (like on the 10 year anniversary of Iraq - nothing but silence).

One would think a statement like that should go in print in the very mouthpiece he used to shamelessly promote pro-war views for nearly five years and marginalize anti-war voices.

(Not that that has anything to do with this shooting - it doesn't & #8's point is dumb - the statement is more appropriate in an argument about the WOT or Iraq.)

tkc on August 20, 2013 at 12:30 PM

@9
"As regards the war in Iraq, he has done just that. Publicly. REPEATEDLY."

Oct 23, 2002 - Say "YES" to War on Iraq
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…

Mar 19, 2003 - Against the War--For Now
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…

Dec 30, 2003 - Dept. of Disastrous Middle-East Wars We Helped Cause
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dept-…

So he has admitted that he opposed a war that did not kill as many "Islamo-Fascists" that he wanted to.
And he has admitted that it is Bush's fault for running the war wrong.
And he has admitted that it is Bush's fault for not telling Dan what everyone else was telling Dan.

"Using his decade-old now-repudiated position on an issue as indicative of his current thinking is intellectually lazy and dishonest."

Here is a video of some children being shot in the war in Iraq that Dan supported.
http://www.france24.com/en/20100406-leak…
That was in 2007.
And the people killed in that video are still dead.
So how long until they come back to life?
Is there some waiting period between Dan's apology in 2013 for supporting the deaths of "Islamo-Fascists" and the victims of that war coming back to life?

But it is okay because the lives or Iraqi children are worth so much less than the lives of good American kids.

fairly.unbalanced on August 20, 2013 at 12:32 PM

As long as we can all agree Dan Savage should be blamed for the violence I guess we can all sleep at night.

I gotta say I haven't been very impressed with the vigilantes so far. Maybe it's time to give something else a try?

fletc3her on August 20, 2013 at 12:38 PM

@11: Jesus, you are one stupid fucker, aren't you?

I mean, I am trying to coax enough meaning out of your word salad to build a counter-argument around, but it just isn't happening. You read like an AI that just failed its Turing test, hard.

I shouldn't be surprised. Your posting history seems to consist primarily of cut-'n-paste boilerplate. (BTW, this is a gun control post. Bring on the "Trolling Bingo" comment. It's a classic! This could be the one thread where it works! You know you want to.)

Backyard Bombardier on August 20, 2013 at 12:44 PM

@8: You know how the Republican response to Benghazi was shocking at first because it seemed substantive, but then eventually, since they never changed one line of their self-righteous, pearl-clutching tune despite clear evidence that directly contradicted their claims, just became shrill and irritating and predictable and exhausting?

lolorhone on August 20, 2013 at 12:55 PM

@13
Roll out the personal insults when you cannot address the points made.
I can spell it out again.
Dan is against guns that might shoot American children.
Dan was very supportive of sending guns and people to shoot said guns over where they might shoot Iraqi children.

Here is a video of what happens.
http://www.france24.com/en/20100406-leak…

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.

fairly.unbalanced on August 20, 2013 at 1:02 PM

@15:

Meanwhile, not a single member of the G.W. Bush administration - you remember them, the ones who sold us the bottle of snake oil in the first place? - has ever publicly admitted they were wrong (well, except Colin Powell - ten years after the fact), which Dan has done - repeatedly. Yet, I don't see you holding them to account for their deliberate, premeditated mendacity - why do you suppose that is?

Oh, right. Because you're an ignorant, one-note douche-bucket, that's why...

COMTE on August 20, 2013 at 1:16 PM

@16
"which Dan has done - repeatedly."

Let me help you with that.

Say "YES" to War on Iraq - Oct 23, 2002
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times."

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"The Islamo-fascists will succeed where the Bush administration has failed."

Dept. of Disastrous Middle-East Wars We Helped Cause - Dec 30, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dept-…
"Still, I don't regret my support for the war, nor do I regret the war itself."

So it appears that Dan has not apologized, repeatedly, as you claim.
But I have three links showing where he is not apologizing.

fairly.unbalanced on August 20, 2013 at 1:36 PM

@15: Roll out the same ineffective arguments when you have nothing else to say.

You have no valid argument against rational gun control measures that could help reduce gun deaths in the United States. So instead you resort to poisoning the well. Dan Savage posts about gun control; Dan Savage supported the Iraq War in 2002; anything Dan Savage says about gun control is therefore invalid. QED.

It is a groundless, losing argument. That you resort to it again and again indicates either (a) you have no real argument; (b) you are one stupid fucker; or (c) all of the above.

Let me know which one it is.

Backyard Bombardier on August 20, 2013 at 1:38 PM

@18
"You have no valid argument against rational gun control measures that could help reduce gun deaths in the United States."

And you do not see the problem with that statement.
I'll point it out to you.
The word "rational" applies to whatever each individual person believes it does at that point in time.

Dan thought it was "rational" to send people with more guns to the mid-east.
Why did Dan think that?
"Because we're not just at war with al Qaeda, stupid. We're at war with a large and growing Islamo-fascist movement that draws its troops and funds from all over the Islamic world."
Now, is that a "rational" statement?
Dan thought so.
Dan might still think so.

And you continue to post personal insults instead of addressing the points.

fairly.unbalanced on August 20, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Man, this isn't even a good troll fest. Slog, I am disappoint.

Helix on August 20, 2013 at 2:28 PM

@19: What point?

No, seriously. WHAT POINT? That Dan expressed an opinion in 2002 that you disagree with, therefore everything he says is wrong - regardless of how his thinking may have evolved since 2002? That is no argument at all.

Or perhaps your point is that Dan thought guns were a good idea in Iraq in 2002, therefore consistency demands that he also think they are a good idea in Georgia in 2013. Which is... even less of an argument.

You spend all your time trying to discredit those who speak out in favour of gun control, without addressing their arguments. It's bullshit.

Backyard Bombardier on August 20, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Send an intern over to the Stephanie Miller Show to borrow a can of Troll-Be-Gone and spray the place down already.

kwodell on August 20, 2013 at 2:37 PM

@21
"No, seriously. WHAT POINT?"

I can cut an paste from my previous post where I spelled out my points. So I will.
Dan is against guns that might shoot American children.
Dan was very supportive of sending guns and people to shoot said guns over where they might shoot Iraqi children.

Here is a video of what happens.
http://www.france24.com/en/20100406-leak…

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.

fairly.unbalanced on August 20, 2013 at 2:41 PM

I'm just glad no one was hurt.

jade windows on August 20, 2013 at 2:42 PM

From the way fairly.unbalanced talks, you would think Dan's opinion was the only factor that made it possible for us to go to war with Iraq! As though Dan's opinion really made a difference in whether or not we invaded that country. I remember active protests against the war as it approached, and that didn't stop anything, so why would Dan's single opinion, an opinion for which he has repeatedly acknowledged was wrong and has apologized, have any affect on whether or not we were going to invade Iraq? (Sorry, Dan, I'm a huge fan, but as we all now know, once W was [s]elected, our going to war with Iraq was pretty much guaranteed, and nothing was going to stop it.)

Now as COMTE @16 has pointed out, the people whose opinions DID lead us into that horrific war (with the exception of Colin Powell) have never apologized or acknowledged that they were wrong about WMDs and that the entire war was a complete blunder. Why don't you hold them as responsible as you seem to hold Dan?

And you linking this latest school shooting to Dan's support for the war in Iraq is disingenuous at best. Remember, W and his cronies promised us that we would be greeted as "liberators" and that the war would be over in a matter of months. Therefore, Dan wasn't supporting killing Islamic children, he was simply duped, as many members of Congress were, into thinking that by invading Iraq, we would actually be saving many Iraqi children from death at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Dan's only mistake was in believing that our presence in Iraq would be a good and stabilizing force, and he's not the only one who made that mistake.

Just because he might have been mistaken about the Iraq war doesn't mean his opinions on gun control have no merit. We all make mistakes. At least he is able to admit when he was wrong. Will you have the same strength and courage to admit that perhaps you might be wrong about the need for rational gun control? Or, with each school shooting, will you keep bringing up this same, old, tired, and completely unrelated argument over and over again? I'm guessing it will be the latter, but you never know.

SherBee on August 20, 2013 at 3:14 PM

@25
"I remember active protests against the war as it approached, and that didn't stop anything, so why would Dan's single opinion, an opinion for which he has repeatedly acknowledged was wrong and has apologized, have any affect on whether or not we were going to invade Iraq?"

Do you have links for that "repeatedly" because no one else has been able to post more than one.
But I can post three to counter your claim of his "single" opinion.

Say "YES" to War on Iraq - Oct 23, 2002
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times."

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"The Islamo-fascists will succeed where the Bush administration has failed."

Dept. of Disastrous Middle-East Wars We Helped Cause - Dec 30, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dept-…
"Still, I don't regret my support for the war, nor do I regret the war itself."

"Just because he might have been mistaken about the Iraq war doesn't mean his opinions on gun control have no merit."

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.

Here's a video of US troops shooting Iraqi children.
http://www.france24.com/en/20100406-leak…
"Still, I don't regret my support for the war, nor do I regret the war itself."

fairly.unbalanced on August 20, 2013 at 3:30 PM

@26: Cut-paste-post-cut-paste-post-cut-paste-post... Keep fucking that chicken.

Backyard Bombardier on August 20, 2013 at 3:45 PM

@27: Nice.

lolorhone on August 20, 2013 at 4:16 PM

@27
"No, seriously. WHAT POINT?"

Shall I cut-and-paste my points so that you can read them again?
I can do that if it will help you understand that I have posted my points here already.

Dan is against guns that might shoot American children.
Dan was very supportive of sending guns and people to shoot said guns over where they might shoot Iraqi children.

Here is a video of what happens.
http://www.france24.com/en/20100406-leak…

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.

So, can you address the points or are you going to resort to personal insults?

fairly.unbalanced on August 20, 2013 at 4:33 PM

@29: Your points have already been addressed a thousand times in this thread and many others before it. The only thing left to do is resort to personal insults. So shut up, little man.

lolorhone on August 20, 2013 at 4:50 PM

@30
"Your points have already been addressed a thousand times in this thread and many others before it."

Then you should be able to link to one such example, right?

"The only thing left to do is resort to personal insults. So shut up, little man."

And you have not provided a link that shows what you've claimed.
So you post personal insults instead.
But I can provide links showing what I've said.

Dept. of Disastrous Middle-East Wars We Helped Cause - Dec 30, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dept-…
"Still, I don't regret my support for the war, nor do I regret the war itself."

fairly.unbalanced on August 20, 2013 at 4:58 PM

@31: Don't need a link. Check your own history and re-read those threads. Then get help. Seriously. You're this close to "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy..."

lolorhone on August 20, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Yo Unbalanced, I don't give a shit about Dan's opinion on guns and kids, nor your opinion on guns and kids. But I would like your opinion on a different question.

Would it be rational (in your mind) to require that every gun sold be equipped with a trigger lock? Would it be Constitutional to require that?

Ok that is two questions. But I'm sure your mentally capable. Well not really but willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Oh and yes the two questions have nothing to do with the shooting Dan posted about. I'm not asking you about that, so there is no need for you to address school shootings.

Machiavelli was framed on August 20, 2013 at 8:33 PM

@29: Oh fairly.unbalanced every time you post about Dan and guns I'll bet your face looks just like a cat's butt.

Maybe it's time for you to drop the "fairly" from your handle and just stick to the more accurate moniker "unbalanced" when posting on this topic. Or perhaps change your name to scissors.andpaste?
Just a thought.

Lissa on August 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM

@32
"Don't need a link."

Yes you do.
And it's easy to do if what you say is true.
Here, I'll show you again.

Dept. of Disastrous Middle-East Wars We Helped Cause - Dec 30, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dept-…
"Still, I don't regret my support for the war, nor do I regret the war itself."

Unless what you've claimed is not true.
Then posting a link is impossible.

fairly.unbalanced on August 21, 2013 at 9:39 AM

@35 Like I said: Failing your Turing test. Hard.

Backyard Bombardier on August 21, 2013 at 10:12 AM

@36
So you're going with the personal insult angle again?

"No, seriously. WHAT POINT?"

Shall I cut-and-paste my points so that you can read them again?
I can do that if it will help you understand that I have posted my points here already.

Dan is against guns that might shoot American children.
Dan was very supportive of sending guns and people to shoot said guns over where they might shoot Iraqi children.

Say "YES" to War on Iraq - Oct 23, 2002
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times."

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.

So, can you address the points or are you going to resort to personal insults?

fairly.unbalanced on August 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM

@37: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy all work and no play makes jack a dull boy ...

Backyard Bombardier on August 21, 2013 at 10:25 AM

@38
Thanks.
So you are not going to address my points.
Even when I provide links to where Dan specifically stated what I quoted him as stating.
But now Dan is upset when there is a danger of an American child being shot.

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.

fairly.unbalanced on August 21, 2013 at 10:52 AM

So, hate to interrupt the trolling flame war, but have people heard the story of how it happened that there were no casualties? This incredibly awesome bookkeeper talked the gunman down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/e…

She is so cool!

Gaudior on August 21, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Fairly Unbalanced, here is a video just for you. Dan apologizing for the position he took on the Iraq war.

http://vimeo.com/69554806

Velvetbabe on August 23, 2013 at 2:32 AM

@35: Because the truth has never been verified without a fucking link.
@38: You stole my joke, jerk :)
@41: Thank you kindly. Hey look, fairly unbalanced, here's a fucking link anyway! Would you please shut the fuck up now?

lolorhone on August 23, 2013 at 8:02 AM

@40- absolutely awesome, inspiring story of how this guy was talked down by a staff member. That woman was so brave.

firelizard19 on August 23, 2013 at 8:03 AM

@42
"Because the truth has never been verified without a fucking link."

Because anyone can make any claim they want to.
So where is your link showing that, as you had claimed in post #30:
"Your points have already been addressed a thousand times in this thread and many others before it."

Here's a link to Dan's comments. I've even included the date for you.
Dept. of Disastrous Middle-East Wars We Helped Cause - Dec 30, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dept-…
"Still, I don't regret my support for the war, nor do I regret the war itself."

Or are you going to resort to personal insults?

fairly.unbalanced on August 23, 2013 at 3:39 PM

@44: This is a link to a video of Dan (thanks to @41) not only admitting he was wrong about the war (which was still in its incipience in 2003, seeing as how it's still going on) but admitting that he was an asshole about it to those who disagreed with him at the time. I even have a date for you (ten years AFTER your link, making this one a little more current): May 30, 2013. Now please stop this subject-specific cyber-stalking bullshit.

http://vimeo.com/69554806

lolorhone on August 23, 2013 at 10:38 PM

@45
"This is a link to a video of Dan"
Posted by lolorhone on August 23, 2013 at 10:38 PM

"Don't need a link."
Posted by lolorhone on August 20, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Three days to find a single link.
Well, to be fair, I have three links to Dan's comments and you only have one.
Now you seem to be referring to a comment made about my comment #26 where I posted:
"Do you have links for that 'repeatedly' because no one else has been able to post more than one."

So it took you three days to find that single link when the discussion had moved to whether Dan had "repeatedly acknowledged was wrong and has apologized".
Because I can show where he had REPEATEDLY supported the war.
So how many more days will it take you to find a second link?
How many?

Dept. of Disastrous Middle-East Wars We Helped Cause - Dec 30, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dept-…
"Still, I don't regret my support for the war, nor do I regret the war itself."

fairly.unbalanced on August 24, 2013 at 11:09 AM

@46: So what is it you want now? We have a video of Dan admitting he was wrong in the clearest of terms about his support of the war in Iraq, and that he was an " asshole about it to those who were right".

So? What now fairly.unbalanced? Will you be able to let go of this now, or are you too heavily invested? Will there be too great a void in your life if you can no longer warm yourself gloating over Dan's great sin?
Was Dan's success in life such a burr under your blanket, that finding a flaw in him was like finding a golden ticket of validation? And now that's gone.

If you can let this go, then you are a mature and rational human being. If you cannot, especially in light of clear evidence that your grievance has been addressed, then you will be relegated to the ranks of wingnuttery with the likes of Seattleblues, loveschild, and the banned Danny Troll, the "fairly" portion of your sceen name will be excised from every ones mind, and no one will take you seriously about anything any more. You'll just be one more Dan Savage hating crank.

Your call.

Lissa on August 24, 2013 at 2:29 PM

@47
If all you have are personal insults then all you have are personal insults.
Meanwhile I have links to Dan, repeatedly saying that he is okay with sending guns over to Iraq.

Say "YES" to War on Iraq - Oct 23, 2002
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times."

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

Dept. of Disastrous Middle-East Wars We Helped Cause - Dec 30, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dept-…
"Still, I don't regret my support for the war, nor do I regret the war itself."

That's more than a year of public comments in favor of sending more guns.
Dan had already come out against the war, because it wasn't big enough for him (second link).

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.
More guns + more mid-east kids = even better.

fairly.unbalanced on August 24, 2013 at 4:51 PM

@46: I didn't find the link. I didn't even look for a link. Velvetbabe @41 found the link; I pointed out that a link had been found since you continued to natter on about a lack of verifying links @44. Now you need more than one link, even though the video addresses every point of contention in this stupid and stupidly long crusade of yours. You keep shifting the goalpost; I'll continue to NOT bother trying to appease you, since presenting clear and compelling evidence you've requested clearly doesn't matter to you (did you even watch the video?).

P.S.

Various people on Slog have been telling you for as long as you've been bitching about it that Savage both reversed and apologized for his position on the Iraqi War. If the only written or recorded evidence that Dan had apologized is the video included in the link, and the video is dated May 30 of this year, how did everybody know that he had done so if he hadn't said as much at least a few times before?

lolorhone on August 24, 2013 at 5:33 PM

@48: Noooooo what I have, what we all have, is a video of Dan from May 2013.( That would be this year) in which he admits that he was wrong and that he had been an asshole to those who had been right, of whom one assumes you would number your self.
It's over. Your grievance has been completely and explicitly addressed.
So the question is, can you accept that and move on, or are you too invested in hating Dan? If in the face of the video evidence, you cannot let it go, then you have made your choice, and moved to Camp Crackpot.
Again, this is up to you.

Lissa on August 24, 2013 at 9:23 PM

@50
"Noooooo what I have, what we all have, is a video of Dan from May 2013.( That would be this year) in which he admits that he was wrong and that he had been an asshole to those who had been right, of whom one assumes you would number your self."

You have one video where he does not explain how he was wrong.
#9 "As regards the war in Iraq, he has done just that. Publicly. REPEATEDLY."
#16 "which Dan has done - repeatedly."
#25 "an opinion for which he has repeatedly acknowledged was wrong"

I have three articles that cover more than a year where he explains in detail why he was right.
Three is more than one.
This link even says that he was against the war because President Bush was not invading enough countries.

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

The life of an Iraqi child is worth less than the life of an American child.

fairly.unbalanced on August 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM

@51: Do you not understand the concept of chronology? All of the shit you quote was ten years ago; since then, he has demonstrably had a change of heart. If you can't accept that, this is officially YOUR PROBLEM. Like subject-specific Tourette's with cut-and-paste and catchphrases. Seriously.

lolorhone on August 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM

@52
"All of the shit you quote was ten years ago; since then, he has demonstrably had a change of heart."

You'll have to provide a link for that.
Because I can provide a link where he says he is against the war because President Bush did not invade enough countries.

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

Here, I can repeat Dan's headline for you.
Against the War -- For Now
And why was he against the war back in 2003?
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.
More guns + more mid-east kids = even better.

fairly.unbalanced on August 25, 2013 at 2:19 PM

@53: What the fuck? THE LINK I REPOSTED @45. THE LINK @41 THAT VELVETBABE POSTED ORIGINALLY. Did you watch the video or am I talking to something automated?

lolorhone on August 25, 2013 at 2:51 PM

@54
I suggest you actually watch that video because it does not show, as you claimed, "All of the shit you quote was ten years ago; since then, he has demonstrably had a change of heart".

Say "YES" to War on Iraq - Oct 23, 2002
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times."

Now, go watch that video and quote exactly where he says that he's had a "change of heart" about the children in Iraq.
Go ahead.

Because if it is just that he does not support the war anymore then he's said that years ago.
And I've quoted him and linked to it for you.

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

Against the war because not enough countries were being invaded.

fairly.unbalanced on August 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

@56: You are officially inventing shit on Dan's behalf here. You'll never relinquish your grievances, no matter how directly they are addressed. Welcome to Crackpot Central, fairly unbalanced, located at the corner of Batshit and Repetitive.

lolorhone on August 26, 2013 at 12:18 AM

@56
"You are officially inventing shit on Dan's behalf here."

Those are direct quotes with links for you to verify them.
If Dan said what you had claimed he said then you would also be able to provide direct quotes and links.

fairly.unbalanced on August 26, 2013 at 10:16 AM

@57: You. Are. Projecting. Dan. Said. He. Was. Not. Only. Wrong. He. Was. An. Asshole. About. It. That's. A. Direct. Quote. I. Can't. Talk. To. You. Anymore. It's. Pointless. And. Excruciating.

lolorhone on August 26, 2013 at 11:52 AM

@58
"He. Was. An. Asshole. About. It."

And no one is saying that he was not an asshole.
So why are you bringing it up?
What I am saying is that he specifically referenced the children in Iraq.

Say "YES" to War on Iraq - Oct 23, 2002
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times."

Now if you say he has had a "change of heart" then it is up to you to post a link to him saying that about the children in Iraq.
If all you can find is a quote that he is against the war now, I can show where he was against the war back in 2003 because it didn't include invading enough countries.

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

Those are direct quotes from him and links so you can verify them.
Because I can provide direct quotes and links.

fairly.unbalanced on August 26, 2013 at 12:33 PM

@59: Your links are ten years old.
Velvetbabe posted a video link from MAY OF THIS YEAR. 2013 in which Dan admits that he was not only wrong about supporting the war in Iraq back then, but also admits that he was an asshole about it at the time.
So.
Dan had changed his mind and and admitted he was wrong, explicitly IN THE VIDEO posted by Velvetbabe and reposted by lolorhone.

Go watch the video.

If you still think that links from 10 years ago prove that Dan still supports the war in Iraq, and still thinks he was right at the time, even though he has stated flat out in May of this year that that is no longer the case, then you are well and truly completely unbalanced.

Lissa on August 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM

@59: " I. Can't. Talk. To. You. Anymore. It's. Pointless. And. Excruciating." There's a direct quote, if not a link. Enjoy your cut-and-paste posting in perpetuity. Seems productive.

lolorhone on August 26, 2013 at 12:57 PM

@61
Punctuation is not the same as direct quotes.
This is a direct quote with a link.

Say "YES" to War on Iraq - Oct 23, 2002
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times."

Including more punctuation is not a substitute for a direct quote.

fairly.unbalanced on August 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM

@62: The extra punctuation was in the original quote. The original quote came from me @58. Therefore it is, indeed, a direct quote. If you're going to get smarmy, at least be CORRECT and smarmy.

lolorhone on August 26, 2013 at 2:22 PM

@63
"The original quote came from me @58."

So you are quoting yourself when the discussion is about Dan's previous support for sending more guns to Iraq?
But you don't have a direct quote from Dan showing what you claim he said?

I do.

Say "YES" to War on Iraq - Oct 23, 2002
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times."

That is a quote from Dan.
Along with a link so that you can verify it.
That is what Dan said.
Are you going to quote yourself again? Along with the excess punctuation?

fairly.unbalanced on August 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM

@64: This last exchange is proof positive that you willfully avoid absorbing, let alone addressing what everyone else is saying. Not only did you not notice the quote came from me, you didn't notice that it was posted TWICE and then, most incredibly, you clearly didn't even read what it actually said or you wouldn't still be posting nonsense at me. Try again. Pay attention to the content between the quote marks and have a pleasant afternoon.

lolorhone on August 26, 2013 at 3:04 PM

@64: Here you go. Two direct quotes from Dan and the link to back them up from May of 2013. The video is titled I was wrong about the Iraq war .

"I was for the Iraq war and that was stupid; I've certainly changed my mind on that"

"I was 100% spectacularly wrong and I wasn't just wrong, I was an asshole about it."

http://vimeo.com/69554806

Your beef with Dan is over. Let it go.
He was wrong and you were right and he has admitted that he was wrong and also an asshole about it.

Let. It. Go.

Or don't. Keep bringing it up! We'll just post this video every time you do, and more and more people will think less and less of your already shaky credibility.

Lissa on August 26, 2013 at 3:18 PM

@65
"This last exchange is proof positive that you willfully avoid absorbing, let alone addressing what everyone else is saying."

You were quoting yourself.
You were not quoting Dan.
You can quote yourself as often as you want but that still does not equal a quote from Dan.
Here is a quote from Dan.

Say "YES" to War on Iraq - Oct 23, 2002
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times."

"Pay attention to the content between the quote marks and have a pleasant afternoon."

If it is not a quote from Dan, why are you posting it?
This is a discussion about Dan's statements.

fairly.unbalanced on August 26, 2013 at 3:21 PM

@67: I'm posting it to END this ridiculous discussion. As in I CAN"T TALK TO YOU ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU'RE A CRACKPOT CRANK WITH SELECTIVE HEARING AND AN EXHAUSTING PROPENSITY TO REPEAT YOURSELF.

IF DAN STATES "I WAS 100% SPECTACULARLY WRONG AND I WASN'T JUST WRONG, I WAS AN ASSHOLE ABOUT IT" IN A VIDEO THAT WAS MADE TEN YEARS AFTER EVERYTHING YOU CAN LINK TO- AND HE DOES IF YOU ACTUALLY WATCH THE VIDEO- THEN THAT "100%" COVERS THE "WAR MAY BE BAD..." QUOTE AS WELL.

You care to address that? Logic dictates it's time to pack it in.

lolorhone on August 26, 2013 at 3:59 PM

@68
"As in I CAN"T TALK TO YOU ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU'RE A CRACKPOT CRANK WITH SELECTIVE HEARING AND AN EXHAUSTING PROPENSITY TO REPEAT YOURSELF."

I can quote Dan and link to the article that I'm quoting.
Like this.

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

He's against the war back in 2003.
Because he wanted more guns sent to more countries.
You can quote yourself.

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.
More guns + more mid-east kids = even better.

fairly.unbalanced on August 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM

@69: And we can do the same!

"I was for the Iraq war and that was stupid; I've certainly changed my mind on that"

"I was 100% spectacularly wrong and I wasn't just wrong, I was an asshole about it."

http://vimeo.com/69554806

Give it up. Your 10 year old quotes are outdated and inaccurate in light of the video which is, once again, from May of 2013.

You need new material.

Every time you post this crap you look crazier.

@68: lolorhone, just post the video. unbalanced will show up again in another thread, rubbing his hands over the same ancient links, and all you have to do is post the video. It will make Dan look even better, and unbalanced even less credible.

If such a thing is possoble.

Lissa on August 26, 2013 at 6:34 PM

@70: I was waiting for logical engagement. Silly me, I know.

lolorhone on August 26, 2013 at 7:28 PM

@70
"I was for the Iraq war and that was stupid; I've certainly changed my mind on that"

He was also against the war back in 2003.

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

He was against sending more guns to Iraq in 2003 because enough guns were not being sent to other countries.
So that's twice he's been against the war and three times that he's been for sending more guns.
That includes the one time that he was both against the war and for sending more guns.

fairly.unbalanced on August 26, 2013 at 7:30 PM

@71:

I Was Wrong About the Iraq War-May 30, 2013

"I was 100% spectacularly wrong and I wasn't just wrong, I was an asshole about it."

http://vimeo.com/69554806

10 year old link < less than 3 month old link.

But by all means unbalanced, keep ridin' that crazy train.

Lissa on August 26, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Oops! @72!

Lissa on August 26, 2013 at 8:49 PM

@73
Again, Dan was also against the war back in 2003 because it did not involve sending enough guns to enough nations.

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

So Dan has been against the war but still for sending more guns.
Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.
More guns + more mid-east kids = even better.

fairly.unbalanced on August 27, 2013 at 7:45 AM

@75: And in the 10 years since he wrote that he has changed his mind completely.

"I was 100% spectacularly wrong, and I wasn't just wrong, I was an asshole about it."

http://vimeo.com/69554806

Aaaaaalll aboard! Choo choo! Don't miss your train unbalanced!

Lissa on August 27, 2013 at 10:07 AM

@76
"And in the 10 years since he wrote that he has changed his mind completely."

As he had changed his mind about supporting the war back in 2003.
Here is a link showing that he was against the war back in 2003.

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

Why was he against the war?
Because not enough countries were being invaded.
Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.
More guns + more mid-east kids = even better.

And he wrote an entire article about it.
So you'll have to do a bit more than just show that he is against the war now without any explanation.
Because I can show that he was against the war back in 2003 and it wasn't because he was afraid that Iraqi kids might be hurt.

fairly.unbalanced on August 27, 2013 at 12:11 PM

@77: "Because I can show that he was against the war back in 2003 and it wasn't because he was afraid that Iraqi kids might be hurt."

And SINCE THEN, Dan stated he was "100% spectacularly wrong, and I wasn't just wrong, I was an asshole about it."

That 100% covers 2003 because it was said in MAY OF 2013. Chronology trumps obsession. Pick another subject.

http://vimeo.com/69554806

lolorhone on August 27, 2013 at 2:09 PM

For the explanation you desire unbalanced, all you have to do is watch the video.

http://vimeo.com/69554806

So how's the dining car?

Lissa on August 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM

@78
"For the explanation you desire unbalanced, all you have to do is watch the video."

I did watch it.
Which is how I know that he does not ever address the issue in that video.
Which is why you cannot quote him from that video.
Like I said before, and you have been unable to refute, I can show that he was against the war back in 2003 and it wasn't because he was afraid that Iraqi kids might be hurt.
He was against it because it did not involve sending enough guns to enough countries.

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.
More guns + more mid-east kids = even better.

fairly.unbalanced on August 27, 2013 at 3:29 PM

In 2003. Not in 2013 which is now. Unless you have a time machine you have no argument.

Wait. Is the crazy train also a TIME MACHINE?!!
Well that would explain everything!!

He supported the war in Iraq in 2003.
In 2013 he admits he was 100% wrong to have done so. Not conditionally or with any caveats as he did in your faaaaaaaavorite antique link, but 100% wrong.

You have no argument. You are going to have to find another reason that Dan shouldn't be allowed to speak or write about gun violence in the US, so put on that tinfoil thinking cap of yours and get crackin' unbalanced!

Lissa on August 27, 2013 at 3:49 PM

@81
"He supported the war in Iraq in 2003."

No.
Read the link I posted.
Here it is again.
It's right in the title.

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

There was a point In 2003 where Dan was against the war.
And he was against the war in 2003 because it did not involve sending enough guns to enough countries.

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.
More guns + more mid-east kids = even better.

fairly.unbalanced on August 27, 2013 at 4:28 PM

So you don't know what the words "conditionally" or "caveat" mean then, because there can be no other explanation for your reply.

Oh no wait, there is. You're on the crazy train and you won't get off.
2013
Guns+American kids= bad
Guns + Iraqi kids = bad
Guns + kids full stop =bad

Why hasn't he said anything about Syria?
The answer is in the video. He was wrong about Iraq the middle east back then and won't make the same horrible mistake again.

You only have that one 10 year old link left clutched tightly in your hot little hand. Feel it slipping away unbalanced?

Lissa on August 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM

@83
"Why hasn't he said anything about Syria?"

Syria is not Iraq.
They are two different countries.
As I said, there was a point In 2003 where Dan was against the war.
And he was against the war in 2003 because it did not involve sending enough guns to enough countries.

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.
More guns + more mid-east kids = even better.

fairly.unbalanced on August 27, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Ah but Syria is in the Mid East. Either your beef is with Dan's past position regarding Iraq, which even you have been forced to admit he now wholly repudiates ( else why abandoned all but one of your precious links) or it is with the third part of your equation. If Dan thinks more guns + more mid-east kids = even better, surely you have some links of a more recent vintage than 2003 to support that.
If you think he still believes that prove it.

Lissa on August 27, 2013 at 10:53 PM

@85
"Ah but Syria is in the Mid East."

Being in the Mid East is not the same as being Iraq.

"Either your beef is with Dan's past position regarding Iraq, which even you have been forced to admit he now wholly repudiates ( else why abandoned all but one of your precious links) or it is with the third part of your equation."

Nothing has been "abandoned".
Your latest claim was that because Dan said he was now against the war that that means that he does not think that more countries need to be invaded.
But I can show that he was against the war in 2003 and still believed that more countries needed to be invaded.
I don't need to show that he's willing to sacrifice Iraqi children for that.
But I can show that.
Here they all are, again.

Say "YES" to War on Iraq - Oct 23, 2002
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times."

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

Dept. of Disastrous Middle-East Wars We Helped Cause - Dec 30, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dept-…
"Still, I don't regret my support for the war, nor do I regret the war itself."

And here's a bonus video of the US military shooting some children in Iraq.
http://www.france24.com/en/20100406-leak…

fairly.unbalanced on August 28, 2013 at 7:20 AM

But can you show that he still holds any of these opinions?
No you cannot.
Dan has said he was 100% wrong about the war in Iraq. So that takes care of your October 2002 and December 2003 links. They are no longer valid. You can no longer argue that Dan still holds those opinions since we have recent video evidence that he admits that he was wrong.
That portion of your argument is demolished, so now you cling to your last link in which you shift from hating Dan for supporting the war in Iraq to hating him for supporting war in other countries in the Middle East of which Syria is one. Syria which looks to be a country full of middle eastern kids that the US is fixing to go to war with.
If you believe that Dan still believes guns + Middle East kids (Syria, remember is in the Middle East and full of kids!)= even better, why can't you show me any links of him supporting the US bombing or invading Syria?
A quote from the video answers that question.

"I would never advocate invading or a war of choice again"

Information is only of worth if it is current, if it still applies. None of your links meet that standard any longer. They only show what Dan's position was 10 years ago, not his position now. The video from May of this year does that. If you can find any evidence that Dan has gone back to supporting the War in Iraq or the invasion of other countries in the Middle East, since this video was made you would have a case. But you can't and you don't. What you have is a fixation on Dan Savage which puts you in the same class as Seattleblues and the Danny Troll.

You have a problem unbalanced, and it is right there in your screen name. From now on when ever I see you post your shit, I will post the video of Dan repudiating his former support of the war in Iraq, as that is the most up to date and thus accurate information on this topic.

You have relegated yourself and your opinions to the lunatic fringe. You have no voice any longer. No one will ever listen to anything you have to say on any other topic because your obsession with Dan shows that your reasoning is suspect.
You made your choice.

Lissa on August 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM

@87
"Dan has said he was 100% wrong about the war in Iraq. "

And in 2003 he said he was against the war.
Because it did not involve sending enough guns to enough countries.

Against the War--For Now - Mar 19, 2003
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders."

So unless you have a link where he says that we should NOT be "invading their countries and deposing their leaders" then you haven't addressed that issue.
So what about those children?

Say "YES" to War on Iraq - Oct 23, 2002
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times."

So unless you have a link where he says that living in Iraq back then was as good or better for the children then you have not addressed that point.
Because if all you have is him saying that he is against the war then I've already shown that back in 2003.

Guns + American kids = bad.
Guns + Iraqi kids = good.
More guns + more mid-east kids = even better.

fairly.unbalanced on August 28, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Shooting at Elementary School in Georgia

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Am I Man Enough?

HoneyHole or HoneyHell?

Chappell Roan Transformed the Showbox into Her “Pink Pony Club”

The Killing of the Pregnant Woman in Belltown Is Unacceptable

Seattle Is the Anti-Fashion Capital of the World

All Aboard! Station Space Coming to King Street Station

Support The Stranger

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!