in the first place.

Got it.

Got it?

... is to be approached with extreme skepticism.

it is using tragedy for political opportunism. According to FOIA obtained emails between Bloomberg's NYC office and his MAIG lackey, on the day of Newtown, there was not one word of compassion or empathy. They were about getting the mayor ahead of congress and the President. They seemed almost glad for the political opportunity. That was even before anyone was pronounced dead or anyone even knew what happened.
Like I said before, people like Bloomberg don't give a rat's ass about victims. It is about control, ideology, and culture war.
Victims of gun violence are nothing more than propaganda fodder. The other 80 percent of violent crime victims are not even that. Same with suicide victims. They emphasize reducing the gun suicide rate, but not the suicide rate. They bring up those who shoot themselves as victims of gun violence. And the other 48 percent of suicide victims? Crickets.

it was SAF and Judicial Watch who got them, but they made pdf files of the 517 pages of them. I read them, they have not been faked. Since it doesn't fit the preferred political narrative, you are not going to find it in Mother Jones, just like you are not going to read about raising the minimum wage lifts all boats in National Review. That is how the real world works. Neither the right or left have any interest in the truth if it conflicts with ideology. I downloaded and read through the emails, that is what I read from the emails themselves, not someone else's opinion of them.
I could put them on my own website and send you to that link, but the information is the same.
Bloomberg is right wing, why do you value his opinion on anything?

Ideology trumps facts, n'est-ce pas?

without linking to Glenn Beck's website

The documents are out there, much as you'd like to believe that ignoring them will make them go away. Once again, ideology trumps reality in your world.

Really, what's your contention? That these documents don't exist? That they were faked? They are a matter of public record, including the FOIA request to get them.

Actually it is FOIL, since we are talking about New York State. 517 pages of scanned pdfs, they are not fake and they are quite real. Since you are more concerned with the source than the content or accuracy, I have to ask:
Are you equally as disgusted at Bill Maher's misogyny as Rush Limbaugh's?
Are you equally as disgusted as Larry O'Donnell's religious bigotry as Glen Becks?
My answer to both is yes, what say you?

I'm questioning your interpretation of the emails that were published on Glenn Beck's website.

or what Glen Beck's website is, since I don't like Glen Beck anymore than I like Larry O'Donnell for the same reasons (religious bigot and self important assholes) or the dim bulbs at TYT (Cenk and his crew has no reason to knock Michele Bachmann lack of intellect. While she is stupid, they are not exactly all that brilliant either.)
but I did download and read through the 547 pages of them, the interpretation I gave is based on my reading of them. If Beck's employees came to the same conclusion that I did, nothing I can do about that.
Since there is no mention of the emails at, say, Think Progress, it is reasonalbe to assume there is no other interpretation.

one email specifically says "to get the mayor ahead of the President and Congress" and look at the date/time stamp. there is no other interpretation of that one email.
One specifically has Bloomberg's chief of staff, an NYC employee on NYC email, bitching at Glaser for metrics. Another mentions Gary Hart offering to create a "gun owners for gun control group" and several that specifically mentions MAIG being pissed off that Brady were poaching their celebrities for Demand a Plan. You can download them and read through them yourself.

I am not right wing, I am far to the left than Bloomberg. Bloomberg is right wing. He is anti union, anti Wall Street regulation, is an authoritarian trust fund baby that believes all civil liberties that should be curtailed "for our own good". Those are out of his mouth, not mine or Glen Beck's.

Since you didn't answer my questions, and given your "it must be right wing if it doesn't agree with my vision", I'm guessing you are OK bigotry and misogyny as long as you don't like the targets, or at least like the people spewing them. I detest them equally, because I believe in right and wrong, not left or right. It is either true, or it isn't.

I believe in basic principles which says Rush is a misogynist POS, and so is Bill Mahar. It also says O'Donnell is an asshole and anti Mormon bigot POS, just like Beck is an asshole and anti Islamic bigot POS. Does that make me right wing or left wing? No. It means I believe in basic principles that tell me anyone, regardless of the letter next to their name, is wrong if they violate them. Anything less is hypocrisy and dishonesty.

You bash Bloomberg for his position on gun control and your personal position on guns is far right. Your attempt to deny those facts is dishonest.

It is logically consistent and is a product of Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Paine.
It really is more about social control, not caring for lives. UK is perfect example, five years for possessing a unlicensed pistol. This asshole will get only 42 months, likely be on parole in 18, for much worse.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/23/steven-simpson-gay-teen-burned-birthday-_n_2939092.html

As for Bloomberg:
Bloomberg on unions:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/bloomberg-compares-teachers-union-nra-article-1.1233507
http://thechiefleader.com/bloomberg-anti-union/image_1564c4c0-bbf7-11e2-8f10-001a4bcf6878.html?mode=jqm

Bloomberg on Wall Street:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36696522/ns/business-us_business/t/wall-streets-high-profile-defender-nyc-mayor/#.Ux_aKnE-u9U

Bloomberg on civil liberties:
http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomberg-says-post-boston-interpretation-of-the-constitution-will-have-to-change/

As I stated before, the links to the Washington Times were made to show the absurdity of the right wing position, not support of the right wing position. Do you understand the difference? This has been explained to you before

...and also every time you try to act as self-appointed threadcop/zampolit/witchfinder.

It's nothing personal, mind you- I've always had a visceral dislike of any and all Cartmanesque
displays of unwarranted self-importance

I also note that you were nowhere near this nuanced upthread- any right wing link
was unacceptable, period. Apparently, some right wing links are more unacceptable than
others...

There's really nothing more I can add to help you understand the difference.

It's especially galling when your originally stated metric would exclude sources that
you yourself have used in the past.

I understand that you run a group. I also understand that this is not that group
The sooner that you grok that, the sooner we'll all be happier.

and stop linking to huffpo, msnbc and left side sites to support your views.

This is the internet. Anyone can find a link to support any story.

This group really could be a great place for a real discussion. But both sides need to play nice.

Otherwise it will just turn into one more mutual admiration society.

You're on a website for liberal & progressive Democrats.

You're really going to try and argue against linking to HuffingtonPost & MSNBC on DU?



This isn't "both sides need to play nice."

This is get the fuck off of DU with your radical right wing views!

Supporting gay rights is now radical right wing?
Supporting a reduced military is now radical right wing?
Supporting the protection of civil rights is now radical right wing?
Supporting a path to citizenship is now radical right wing?
Supporting health care reform is now radical right wing?
Opposing teaching religious views in school is radical right wing?

You got some weird views man.

You might not realize that its possible for people to support some liberal and progressive views without blindly following all of them.

Here's a suggestion. It is possible to understand a concept without supporting it.

But I suppose according to your views, doctors support diseases and death because they understand how germs work.

Fearful electorate + feel-good legislation = lift in polls.

anyone would need 10 round magazines?

have been shot with rounds 11 - 15, and rounds 16 - 30?

I no none of the victims of Sandy Hook were killed with those rounds.

The only possibilty I can think of would be the Tucson shooting, however the Virginia Tech shootings seems to show that the hi-cap bans would not necessarily reduce the number of victims. The one thing these laws do is make those in favor of them feel as if they are accomplishing something.