Thursday, October 22, 2009

Another day, another death threat


Airport guard accused of threatening Obama

NEWARK, N.J., Oct. 22 (UPI) -- A 55-year-old private security guard at a New Jersey airport was arrested for allegedly threatening to shoot U.S. President Barack Obama, officials said.

The New York Post said Thursday John Brek, a security guard at Newark Liberty International Airport, is accused of telling an airport employee he was planning on shooting Obama when the president arrived at the New Jersey airport this week.

Unidentified law enforcement sources said Brek was arrested on Tuesday, one day before Obama arrived at Newark Airport. The president was visiting New Jersey to help campaign for Gov. Jon Corzine.
So, just another murderous right-winger (at least this one doesn't seem like a racist murderous right-winger, but the full investigation isn't in yet).

But, of course, the unhinged right immediately lose their fucking minds: "Demand the death of Bush? You’re safe. Threaten Obama? YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL!... THIS IS CALLED A POLICE STATE BTW" (Vincent dePaul likes his caps lock key - it makes him feel all loud and shouty).

Funny how the Obama-haters have a seriously selective memory, isn't it?

Richard Humphrey went off his medication and made some comment in a bar about a burning bush and was arrested and convicted of threatening the president. Lawrence Ward of Bainbridge, NY, was the subject of a nationwide manhunt after threats he made. And Wilbur Leroy Brown was arrested for a letter threatening the President.

People have been investigated and arrested for threatening the president since the Secret Service started (usually, like in Brek's case, they're arrested by local authorities, though). The difference is that the threat has to be considered credible - the message board entries that Vincent dePaul uses as "proof" obviously weren't (assuming that the Secret Service even saw them - the internet is a big place, and the Bush White House didn't like all this science stuff that much...) See, now this guy, on the other hand, was considered a valid threat.

Of course, not all the threats were valid under Bush. Dan Tilli was questioned for a letter to the editor of his local newspaper, where he mentioned the death of Saddam Hussein and ended with "I still believe they hanged the wrong man." The Secret Service questioned Jesse Ethredge for writing that Bush was a "two-faced murderer" on the back window of his pickup.

Hell, with Dick Cheney, all you had to do was calmly say to him "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible," and the Secret Service would have you arrested.

And yesterday in New Jersey, we had a brain-damaged guy with a cubic buttload of firearms, who said to a guy in line for coffee that he had already cut holes in a fence in order to shoot Obama. Yeah, I think the Secret Service should probably take a look at him.

And Mr dePaul should probably try getting his facts straight.

Update (10/23/09): Well, we had our little exchange of views, and we have established one thing. VdP is a dishonest wad of fuck. Rather than the usual failure to post dissenting opinions so prevalent in the right-hand side of the blogosphere, he prefers to change them. Many of those words you'll see at his post are mine. The last 2 paragraphs are not.

For the record, what I actually wrote was:
Huh. Well, look at that. You found a couple of sites where Bush' life was threatened. Aren't you something?

Now, just off the top of my head, I'll say that, first, you have no idea whether those people were actually approached by the Secret Service, now, do you? And, even if they weren't, you probably don't have a clue whether their little threats were considered "credible." That's just a theory of mine. Tell me if I'm right...

Oh, yeah. You don't "argue economics with emotional junkies and I don't argue politics with short-sighted moralists." Because you don't have an answer.

Or because you're a cock.
Which was, I admit, a little dickish. But at least it was honest. Whereas our boy with the saint's name... well, as the Rude Pundit likes to put it, if there's one thing we know about motherfuckers, it's that they fuck their mothers.


Vincent dePaul said...

Mr. dePaul here, providing you with a list of people who have never been arrested or detained once:

And my personal favorite:

If you wish to continue your addiction to ad hominem debate tactics, I assure you now, that you will not like the results.

Vincent dePaul said...

Let's also not forget this man was detained and had his home inspected based on hearsay. He didn't even get close the degree of threatening activity posed by what your detailed research revealed.

Obama has a serious problem with criticism. Given that he heralds from a party that has had a several decade obsession with speech control and political correctness, this should not come as a surprise.

Vincent dePaul said...

Christ, had I'd known...

When prompted if he understood the differences between global currency mechanisms... instead of asking questions, using Google Books, Wikipedia, or any external information source, he fell back on the same type of ad hominem that has been the base emotion of the Left since the 60s.

I don't argue economics with emotional junkies and I don't argue politics with short-sighted moralists. Just ignore my comments. I won't be responding because I see you are incapable of processing new information. I shall happily leave you with your wall.

Nameless Cynic said...

Hey, Vince. Did you read through the post? ConGen was claiming that Russian efforts at pinning international currency exchanges to something besides the failing dollar meant that Michelle Bachmann was right and we were getting a world currency and the US was DOOMED!

"With your wall"? I'm curious what the hell that meant. And since I'm not blocked by the firewall for accessing WordPress here... hmmm...

Nameless Cynic said...

There. Let's see if he moderates his post. Possible update to come. (I'll give him a chance to respond. I'm cool like that.)

Paul Ellis said...

it's interesting how, in the Con Generation post, he's saying that cynic is wrong because he was rude, and just repeats the same points again, like saying them twice makes them true.

Also, in the "source post," Con Gerneration is saying that Bachmann is right, but he cherrypicks in the second post to quietly ignore what he said.

Nameless Cynic said...

Thank you - I'm glad it wasn't just me seeing that. He mentioned it in his first paragraph, and then ignores it after that.

But it's more than just that. He even misrepresents Ms Bachmann's point - she had just tried to get Congress to say that the President couldn't become part of this vicious One World Government and stop using the dollar in favor of their UN Credit Units or whatever they are. It doesn't matter what Medvedev is suggesting, she's just running off in her own little rabid squirrel direction.

As for Medvedev, it's hard to tell what he's suggesting - I suspect the reporters don't even know, because some reports say he's suggesting a new reserve currency (pinning Eurasian monies to something besides the dollar), but a few do say he's trying ot develop a supranational currency (super-Rubles or whatever, that can spend anywhere): I suspect those are the ones who are getting it wrong, but it doesn't matter. He still isn't suggesting that America even be involved.

You can't misrepresent her position and use that as the basis for an argument (although admittedly, that's the entire Republican strategy in the healthcare debate).

Anonymous said...

That doesn't mean you weren't being a dick.

Pat Riot

Nameless Cynic said...

No, to be honest, I was. Doesn't make my point any less valid.

Vincent dePaul said...

It is unfortunate that you do not enjoy having your argument techniques revealed in real-time in the context in which they are used.

I have no intention to fight fair against a vitriolic ideology that employs political correctness, historical revisionism, speech/thought control, jet planing, and harmonization. (I'd be shocked if you even knew what the last two in that list are) I am not one of these religious Rightists claiming the high ground. There is no tactical advantage to moral superiority.

No pity. No guilt. No altruism. No code. My only job is to force introspection. All I did was reveal your intentions without taking the bait. You seem quite hurt over it.

Nameless Cynic said...

Original post: Well, first off, that's a quarter of the threats faced by Obama.

And second, you're being intellectually dishonest when you alter the words of respondants.

At least the standard wingnut response is to not print them.

Huh? "political correctness"? Me? You haven't read much of my little diatribes, have you? (And, for that matter, "historical revisionism" is primarily a tactic of the right. So, y'know, not so much. I'm happy with the real history, which I cheerfully bang the heads of my idiot commenters with.)

However, I'm fascinated by your two little phrases: "jet planing" and "harmonization". I'll assume we aren't talking about Chinese politics or the gospels, so I'll request definitions here (unless you're too busy with your galley slaves, I guess).

I've done my introspection. I find it interesting that you think you've done yours, against all evidence to the contrary.

I'll admit that you've at least got some minor twinge of humor, and you seem to appreciate the work of Mr Wilson. So let's see what you've got.

Nameless Cynic said...

(And just for the record, the true transcript should read as follows:)

I am a huge fan of direct communication.

OK, so that's a lie. Along with "I don't do deflection." And since you've already gone into the ad hominem over on my site, feel free to lie to the world, but at least don't do it to yourself.

"clever linguistic manipulation or emotional broadsiding"

Huh. Funny thing there, All-Caps-Boy. Who was it who said "police state" first? About standard Secret Service procedures?

And if you're trying to restate the boundaries of the discussion, shouldn't you consider the first ten months of Bush's term against the same period on Obama's? Because, at this point, GW is going to fall way behind in that race.

And, incidentally, the "hearsay between two people in line" (at a coffee cart, not a store - you should probably get those details right) included discussion on actual tactics to kill the black CinC and the dismemberment of the body after the fact. From a brain-damaged man with his own little arsenal. Wow, why would that cause anyone to be concerned?

Nameless Cynic said...

It's actually a fascinating, passive-aggressive way for VdP to hold a conversation.

I suspect it's hard for anyone else to follow (although I'm doing my best here), and it's fundamentally dishonest on his part.

Don't want to leave y'all out, though. Tell me if I should just drop this, since if it looks like gibberish to you folks, it'll get boring.

Donna said...

I clicked over to Getmedia or whatever it is, and read that, and then came back here and read this again and it made more sense. Its hard to follow, though.

Anonymous said...

I think he's pretty funny.

Pat Riot

Diogenes said...

I just now read your "update" and, boy, can you turn a phrase.

"A dishonest wad of fuck".


Not just a "fuckwad" or even a "wad of fuck". A DISHONEST wad of fuck.


And then, in your climax (sorry, couldn't resist) you acknowledge that calling the guy a "cock" is "a little dickish". Is that an apology of sorts, or is that a sly commentary on the size of his, uhhh, maleness?

Chaucer had nothing on you.

Nameless Cynic said...

Thank you. We do what we can. All for the purposes of keeping myself entertained.

Coming next month, the next installment: A Dishonest Wad of Fuck's Tale.