Big Sky Cairn

JC at Left in the West got himself all worked up over an article in the Denver Post that dares suggest that guns are litmus test issue in Montana. If he’s concerned about the big city folk not understanding the demographics of the state, maybe he should start his conversation with his big city Governor who, you’ll remember, told the press in April that McCain would win Montana on one issue.

While he thinks either Obama or Clinton running on his or her own has a 50-50 shot of winning the White House against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, Schweitzer doesn’t think either Democrat can take Montana.

Asked why not, he had a one word answer: “Guns.”

Read the whole article. And then some commentary. And some more commentary.

Okay, I know it’s lame to post the first comment to your own post on a blog (being very careful about vocabulary here, Wulf) but the comments in the thread I link to above are priceless.

1) Sydney Agrees

I really liked this blog…
I think you really hit the nail on the head in many areas.

Only one criticism- you spelled Iverson’s first name wrong. It’s Erik. Just that.

2) Wulfgar condiscendingly corrects some symantics.

Pssst …
By the way, sydney, a blog is a weblog, a given web-space that logs the web and other things, like politics. A post is what people put up … write … on a weblog. They are a weblog’s content. A diary is what is posted by those who cannot post to the front page, which only displays the administered content of a weblog. One most often encounters diaries when they are promoted to the front page of the weblog by a weblog administrator. A weblog administrator is the weblog’s owner or owners. They are responsible for a weblog’s content, design, copyright and even (he adds pointedly) a weblog’s history. A comment is what people leave in response to a post at a weblog at the given invitation of the weblog administrators, or diarist if they are given that power over the content they add to a weblog.

I thought it might be useful, if you’re gonna hang around these parts, that you learn the vernacular. Good luck and good wishes, sydney.

3) Sydney lays into Wulfgar

Whatever
You have to try to get me on semantics? It reeks of desperation. Quit making this about you, Wulf. I was COMPLIMENTING.

Plus, I really don’t care. Blog, post, message board… rolls eyes Get a life, Wulf.

4) Wulfgar explains that he’s never wrong.

Semantics?
On the contrary. I was instructing you in the terminology of Blogging 101. And I did it politely. You, on the other hand, respond with arrogance, derision and silliness. which of us would be desperate, plagiarist? The one who instructs, or the one who fights instruction for no reason? Yeah, that’s what I thought, and that’s why I brought it up. I knew you’d piss yourself when someone attempted to assist you with most mundane of facts.

You don’t know what a ‘blog’ is. You don’t know what ’semantics’ means. You think people owe you a pass on your ignorance because you pathetically attempted to be civil. Yup, you’re a Republican, alright.

5) Me: Amused as hell! He even called Sydney a Republican which, for him, is about as bad as it gets. That got out of control rather quickly… haha.

‘Scuse me, Wiley, but perhaps you can point out exactly where I wrote that I am “never wrong”? And in the effort, perhaps you can point out where I was wrong, or in any way rude, in my original response to sydney. What’s that? You can’t? Go figure.

If a child, or someone with pretense of participating in a certain field of activity, is wrong, the kind thing to do is to correct them, yes? Wouldn’t you educate a child who called a ‘mushroom’ a ‘tree’?

So allow me to correct you for being temporally challenged. April was well before the June ruling of the SCOTUS in the case of D.C. v. Heller. What JC wrote was post-Heller. What the governor said was well before. I know it’s difficult for your side to accept that the rules have changed, but they have. The ruling is in, and now the only thing you can rely on is that Montanans are too damn stupid to understand what it said. Guess it sucks to be you.

And just so that I’m accurate in the future, I will not fail to call the right by what accurately reflects their abilities: Republicants.

I think, Wulfgar, the source of your confusion was in the fact that Sydney wasn’t asking for your tutolage and your post came across a little less “here let me help you out” than you intended. Then, when Sydney reacted to that perception… wow. She got Wulfgar’d right in the face.

Also, thank you for correcting me. Again, I think you mistook my post as a request to be tutored by The Great Wulfgar.

In any case, stance on gun control won’t be broken down by pre and post Heller. Advocates of gun control - like Obama - will not significantly change their opinions based on that decision. Worse, someone like Obama will likely appoint a liberal judge who would be apt to overturn Heller.

The Governor’s comments were not made in consideration of DC v. Heller - they were made in reference to gun control as a whole. And on that, Obama’s record is pretty out of step with Montana.

But overall, you missed the point of my post: JC accuses a the big city reporter in Denver of not understanding Montana when that reporter is merely repeating something that Schweitzer said in April. Either the Denver Post isn’t that far off, or Schweitzer is out of touch with Montana. Choose your poison.

By the way, Kate has done a great job outlining exactly where Obama stands on guns. You should go give it a read and then consider whether you yourself want to support a candidate that feels that way about you and your guns - you bitter, angry gun clinger…

Sorry (not) Wiley. I don’t await the ignorant to “ask” for tutelage, any more than I wait for children to ask me to instruct them concerning a hot stove. Perhaps you do. Are you really that sadistic? And why fault me for not being as sadistic as you?

And in your case, I wasn’t tutoring you. I was correcting you for being blatantly wrong. You know what, Wiley? It’s been my experience that most pathetic Republicants want Democrats labeled as traitors. But the vast majority accept that that isn’t what the law says. I don’t fear them, because they haven’t the power to do jack against me. Requesting, as stupidly as you just did, that I read what I’ve already refuted is precisely asking me to be afraid of what cannot harm me. Obama cannot take my guns, but he can do me a better service than McCant in cleaning up the mess left by BushCo.

But you’re right. The governor’s statements were not made in consideration of Heller. Considering the ruling was still far off (and many predicted that it wouldn’t come until after the election) I have to ask, so what? All you’ve just said is that comments made, out of context for the facts at hand, should actually sway me to believe something I have no reason to believe. Yes, I don’t listen to the Denver post about Montana. Ooohhhh. Is that bad?

I am angry and bitter. I’m angry and bitter that Republicants still think they know more than what I see as the facts. So I won’t vote for Republicants, and I will do my level best to make certain that no one I know does that either.

Wulfgar, personal insults aside, I think you totally ceded the point of this post which was that JC criticized the Denver Post for saying Guns were a litmus issue in Montana when Governor Schweitzer said as much in an April interview.

Given, that, I think your basis for calling me stupid is tenuous as best.