How sad it is that the neocons are sending out the families of their goons to troll ‘blogs. Isn’t it funny that the worst meme they have is “You pesky ‘bloggers aren’t REAL journalists, nyeah nyeah!”. Do they not understand that these sites are just someone’s opinion, not pronouncements from on high?
What’s next? Sam Brownback’s grand-neice telling Kos that’s he’s a meany?
Do you really think you can hide in your tenured, ivory tower and rip government employees without being held accountable? When someone criticizes your heavy-handed name calling you call them a thug? But you sem free in your blog to say anything you want without being called a thug. You still haven’t answered any of my questions. You have no answers so you resort to name calling and using me for your publicity. Continue to do so, it only makes your foolishness clear to all. I’ve asked you to respond by e-mail but you want to fill you blog with something. You claim to be a liberal but you are as closed minded as any conservative I’ve seen. You, like some others in the DOJ, obviously have never seen thuggish behavior or threats in real life. Believe me, if you run into a real thug or threat you will know it. I seem to have touched some nerves in my note to you at work. Didn’t like it? Too bad. You want to be a public star with your blog? Deal with it. What have you done to serve your contry and government? You, by your own admission said nothing during the Clinton years. I guess everything was perfect then. Now, with your party out of power, you decide it is your duty to speak up. Keep talking and saying nothing. Many people have told me not to respond to silly bloggers like yourself, but I feel you need to be held accountable and I will continue to do so. If you don’t want responses, don’t accept comments or make your e-mail address public. I look forward to criticizing you again soon! By the way, that last part is not a threat, it is a promise. Just figured you wouldn’t know the difference.
Rick Elston, if Darryl is “talking and saying nothing”, why are you on a rant? Just a small clue, if you start e-mailing someone at work to continue your rants, that moves you into the “thug” category for most people.
I’m not sure I should leave a comment now because while I can take criticism, I get scared by veiled threats involving any of my immediate family by name. But I can sometimes be a little slow, so I’ll comment anyway. And since I was in the military for 9 years – during the Vietnam “altercation” – I figure that service to my contry [sic] is enough to qualify me as patriotic. Oh, and I’m also qualified to recognize thuggish behavior and threats. And stupidity.
My comment is simply this: service to this country is NOT the same as service to its government, despite what this administration would like us to believe. My disagreements with this government or any member of it do NOT make me a terrorist sympathizer – they make me an American who has the freedom (that I fought for) to speak out and disagree. Oh, and have you attacked the persons who first called your bro – on television – a “thug”? That didn’t happen in the blogosphere, you know.
Rick, what have YOU done for your country? Besides take over Mike’s fight for him?
First, please cut back on the caffeine as it seems (or ’sems’ as you would write it) to make you type terribly. You lose credibility when you write like a semi-literate.
Second, perhaps you should take a deep breath and try to figure out exactly what it is dear brother has been accused of & what you expect as a remedy.
Your brother has been charged with being a goon, later corrected to thug, based on the actual accounts of actual people that, you know, actually have been threatened by him.
At this point you might try to refute those charges in some way; I’d suggest getting people with direct knowledge to recount examples when dear brother could have been a tug but chose not to. You might also try to expose bias or deception on the part of the accusers. Your inability to do either of those things could easily lead one to believe that you can’t, which actually strengthens the case against dear brother. If you are unable to counter-argue your best defense would be to simply sit down and shut up as you are not helping him. In fact one might consider your behavior as thuggish as it appears as if you have threatened to harass people at their job.
Then there is the issue of exactly what it is you want. It is difficult to tell but my best guess is you want someone to investigate dear brothers past & verify that he has not always been thought of as a thug.
The problem with that is two-fold. Not every thug is always a thug. Al Capone’s neighbors loved him & commented on what a great guy he seemed to be. John Wayne Gacy donated thousands of hours brightening the lives of sick children in Chicago. Ted Bundy was a dedicated volunteer at a suicide prevention line and chair of his local Republican Party. And yet they were all thugs of one sort or another. The other problem is that without someone stepping forward that can attest to the opposite all we have from his history are these thuggish act.
I would not consider it thuggish to publish an article calling your brother a goon as there is no threat in it. There is no hint of danger or suggestion that something bad might happen to him.
It is a threat however to write someone at their work address and say that you will harass them until they give in to you. It would be akin to my showing up at the bus depot & saying to you: “Nice little bathroom stall you have here, it would be a real shame if someone called the vice squad and had them come down here to see what you are doing in it.”
So, you seem to take exception to citizens ripping government employees.
Need we remind you that government employees work for us, the citizens? If one does not want to be the target of a ripping from the taxpayers (i.e. their boss), then perhaps they should not go into that line of work.
On concern for possible abuse of power by the Administration use of the Patriot Act…
What was particularly disappointing to me about the on-going debate is the assumption that the Justice Department would misuse or abuse these new tools. In my experience, the federal law enforcement community is full of hard working, honest people with integrity, who believe passionately in the Bill of Rights.
It seems Mike’s never researched his own Department history of abuse, such a COINTELPRO and some other skeletons in the A.G. closet.
In his defense he quotes a noted Senator from California…
In fact, Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, stated during a Senate hearing two years after the law went into effect that she had â€œnever had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff e-mailed the A.C.L.U. and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They e-mailed back and said they had none.â€
Which I think the ACLU should do right away except…
“We haven’t been given the most general statistics on the Patriot Act,” said Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has sued for information. “It doesn’t make sense to expand their powers when we don’t know how they are using the ones they got.”
Kind of hard to complain if the facts remain hidden. But considering that one of Micky’s most successful endeavors was…
He has been involved in the prosecutions both of John Walker Lindh, who is now serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison, having fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Zacharias Massaoui (specifically on attempts by the media to gain access to sealed documents in the case and issues relating to the use of classified documents) as well as other terrorism-related investigations.
I guess that is kind of the point.
Little Ricky was right, a little research goes a long way!
Prof Holman, you are doing a public service by keeping your troll(s) occupied here when they could be eating paste or sticking crayons where they don’t belong. From all accounts, that’s an accurate description of how this Elston fellow spent his school days.
Brotherly love is a fine virtue, but if I had a brother who kept reminding people I had been called a thug, I might wish I had taken some pre-emptive steps in the bathtub when we were younger.
While I have enjoyed our little e-mail arguments as much as I am sure you have, I am afraid I will have to end it now, as I don’t have time to continue to ask for answers that are not forthcoming. I am sorry that many of you feel asking for answers from your blogger, Prof Holman, and going to his work e-mail, linked to his blog, is thuggish. Why link your work e-mail to your blog if you don’t want e-mail sent there? If Prof Holman chooses not to respond to tough questions, that is his right. It is also his right to shoot poisoned darts and any target he wishes but why the big suprise when someone shoots back? I do regret that I let my shock and anger over Prof Holman’s despicable and libelous attacks on my brother’s character lead me to commenting on his “blog”. I do regret letting that shock and anger at Prof Holman’s ridiculous “reporting” or “blogging” tactics reduce me to Prof Holman’s level of name-calling. I do not regret or apologize for anything I said about Prof Holman or his “blog”. That was all correct and true. I simply should have kept those thoughts in my own head rather than sharing them with Prof Holman and crew. I should have given them all the time and response those comments, and the people behind them, deserved: absolutely none. I am sure Prof Holman will find new ways to fill his “blog” space. Prof Holman, you know how to contact me privately if you really want to discuss the facts and issues raised by the “U.S. Attorney scandal” or feel the need to respond. Otherwise, good luck with your “blogging”. I won’t have time to see if you decide to make this a major part of your “blog” as you have with my other comments, but it really does not matter. Hopefully, I will have some free time to check in with “hominid views” after the inevitable Democratic successes in 2008. I hope you will be as “hard-hitting” with your own party as they are far from pure as you seem to believe.
A word of advice. Stick to the blogs you prefer to read. When you throw hissy fits and shit around in places where they don’t know or immediately like you….well what do you expect?
Everyone is having a rollicing good time at your expense. If you are unhappy with that….well then, don’t send dumb e-mail to web sites that use reality as comedy/satire. Stay clear of Jon Stewart’s Show.
“Rick”! I do not think you know what “quote marks” or “for”!
Also, add some content to your comments! They just seem to be a long, stinky smear-mark of snide.
The self-contradictions and gobbledy-gook in your rants is pretty humorous, like a five-year-old telling someone the dream they just had.
BS: Thank you for your comment, and for your service.
Rick: You have a couple of thousnd words in this comment thread, talking about how Holman didn’t respond to your questions. However, there are no questions. For those of us who just stumbled on this thread, what the hell are you so upset about?
It would seem that Rick is upset simply because someone else’s comments about his brother were repeated here without thorough research into whether or not those comments were actually truthful or based on facts. (In other words, is brother Mike really a thug?) I’m assuming he also sent nastygrams to the television and radio networks who rebroadcast those remarks, also without proving that they were factually true. And as upset as he seems to be with those who repeat the remarks, I would guess he’s also sent some REALLY vituperative threatening emails to the person(s) who initially made the remarks. But I doubt it.
And so it ends as it always does with these losers. Someone has the unmitigated gall to print a statement, in this case the public statement of 3 people in a position to comment knowledgeably. Some knuckle-dragging mouth-breather is offended to hear such talk and immediatly demands an appology and/or retraction but is unable to refute the original statement. The lack of an actual factual argument is pointed out to kdmb who than starts trying to make omminous warnings (I can bother you at work forever & ever) while still not offering either a defense or refutation of the original statements. The stupidity of kdmb is pointed out to him in plain and (usually) unsympathetic language. At that point the assclown who had all the time in the world to annoy the blogger suddenly finds that they do not have time for this nonsense, usually accompinied with more mindless vitrol but still absent any counter argument.
You lose little ricky! You lose because you can not refute what was printed with any fact or provide any logical argument why the original statement should be discounted. You lose because you can’t back up your big talk with any action, you bully. Any you lose becuase mom loves your brother more, still not much but more than you.