Obviously, Barack Obama should be subject to scrutiny and criticism. That’s part of picking a president. But as the Clintons have found out, how to scrutinize and criticize him is tricky. And for an appealing reason unrelated to race. “I think we should never be derisive about somebody who has the ability to inspire,†Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill said Tuesday on MSNBC, as noted by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. “You know, we’ve had some dark days in this democracy over the last seven years, and today the sun is out. It is shining brightly. I watch these kids, these old and young, these black and white, 20,000 of them, pour into our dome in St. Louis Saturday night, and they feel good about being an American right now. And I think that’s something that we have to capture.â€
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
122 Comments
Think Obama doesnt play the race card?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×4477924
My pal Peg has been saying this same thing on her blog. On the botton right of the blog, under “catagories” click on barack obama. She has done a number of posts about how Obama virtually ignores his white grandmother who was so kind to raise him.
http://www.kansasprairie.net/kansasprairieblog/
Now watch the barack supporters flock here and accuse ME of being racist.
Sigh…………………..
I am reminded of the old joke about how to eat an elephant.
Q. How do you eat an elephant.
A. One bite at a time.
To my rapidly dwindling number of Democratic friends: we need to be realistic and eat the elephant just one bite at a time.
First bite – we have to actually win the presidency in November.
Second bite – we have to grow our majority in the House and Senate.
Third bite – we need to address the Bush Mess in Iraq.
Fourth bite – we have to return fiscal and tax responsibility to the Federal budget.
Fifth bite – we need to address the Bush Mess in domestic affairs.
Sixth bite – everything else.
Nationalized health care is off the table. The fiscal 2009 budget will result in a $600 billion deficit. There just will not be money to spend – the Neocons dream come true.
“Now watch the barack supporters flock here and accuse ME of being racist.”
Nope.
Thank you for that Clark. And I’m gonna say the same thing to you that you said to Pmom. Paraphrasing of course.
I still consider YOU a friend, even if you dont consider me one.
Peace.
Not racist, “ksfarmgrrl” –
But consider this “Time” magazine poll
from http://www.dailykos.com
“Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain’s 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each. Put another way, McCain looks at the moment to have a narrowly better chance of beating the New York Senator than he does the relative newcomer from Illinois.
“The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for TIME, is that “independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator.” Independents, added Schulman, “are a key battleground.”
“For much of the year, Democrats have enjoyed a wide margin over any Republican rival in theoretical match-ups. Those margins have begun to shrink in recent weeks.”
Yours (and “J R’s”) “let’s not make nice with the Republic Party” rhetoric totally ignores independent voters. I don’t want a razor-thin victory like 2000. I don’t want an almost-victory like 2004. I’m ready for a landslide.
Barack is the candidate who can deliver it.
…and if you obama supporters cant take the heat from your mean ol’ democratic and liberal friends…
Wait until the mighty right wing wurlitzer winds up against him. They’ve been so busy supporting obama and hammering Hillary they havent even STARTED on ol’ barry yet.
To quote BTO, “you aint seen nothin’ yet”.
Methinks someone’s gonna hafta toughen up.
Funny. I did some consulting with/for Abt back when they were Abt Associates.
Wow, the track back starts FAST!
Another thing, “ksfarmgrrl” –
From your pal Peg’s blog:
Maybe it’s as she once said: “I am not giving any interviews,” Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, curtly interjected when a reporter phoned. “I am in poor health.”
At the El Dorado rally, Barack introduced a couple of his Kansas relatives. Departing from his regular stump speech, he spoke elequently about his grandparents, the Dunhams.
No way has he “virtually ignored his his white grandmother.”
As for Barack’s real positions on issues (including GLBT issues) I suggest you refer to http://www.factcheck.org
I’m sure you’ll find more reasons to oppose Obama, but overall he most certainly has not “thrown you under the bus.”
Oh MAN!
The rude one is POSSIBLY the only man I would ever consider marrying. And I dont think he’s the marrying kind. hehehehhe.
Extreme rudeness. Dont click if you are easily offended. And he supports Obama. But this? Is ROLL on the floor funny.
http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Well monkey, like I always say, I hear his pretty words. Just not the ones that apologize for consorting with bigots.
And I also saw his actions. You know what I mean. He SAYS he supports lgbts.
And then he DOES something different.
…and btw, most of Peg’s stuff was written BEFORE the Eldorado rally.
Has he spoken about his mom’s side of the family outside Kansas? Could he have been playing the favorite son card in Kansas and then ignoring his Mom’s family elsewhere?
grrl
Told you McCain was a liberal !!!
Well like I said, when mccain becomes pro choice and pro gay, let me know…
Grrl,
I think he has been a liberal for a while. Pro-war liberal. Maybe not even that. If elected, I think the liberal will REALLY show through. I think the gay and life thing is there for the conservatives only. Once elected, he can unmask.
Geez Sol, are you the Rude Mom? hehehehheheeh!
Like I keep saying… I’m ready to support Obama–JUST ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTIONS!!!!
the ability to inspire…
didn’t we get ‘inspired’ into this war. I think the ability to inspire doesn’t cover much ground. Maybe even a detriment?
Tricky?
You mean tricky like attacking Clinton’s record, means that you hate women?
You mean tricky like attacking Obama’s record, means that you hate blacks?
Tricky like yesterday’s topic “Clinton cannot win with haters”? The defense of Clinton was to label her attackers “HATERS”.
Why wouldn’t the same defense approach be used for Obama? All his attackers are “RACISTS”.
I say this whole debate on attacks on Women and Blacks is just a diversion. No one in the Mass Media wants to put a magnifying glass on the record of either Clinton or Obama.
Well, here’s their records:
http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
It isn’t tricky to find fault with Obama at all.
He extolled Reagan and called the GOP the “party of ideas” without the qualifier “bad”.
And he has not backed down from that.
He’ll have to explain his seeming eagerness to abandon friends in a rush to embrace enemies. As it stands, I cannot vote for him.
Uh, Max, I suggest you reread Rhonda’s post. It states that race is NOT the issue in question: “And for an appealing reason unrelated to race.”
I read Rhonda’s post Stumper, and what she wrote is pure BS.
“I think we should never be derisive about somebody who has the ability to inspire,”
Yeah right Stumper. We shouldn’t attack Obama because he has “such an ability to inspire”.
So does Putin. So does Ahmadinejad.
J R;
What Obama was referring to was the fact that the Reagan administration came up with many ideas. Stating either good or bad was not the principle. The Democrat party used to be the party of ideas. Reagan used that same vain to turn around the Republican party.
Democrats never caught on until Bush took the reins of the white house. Now we are calling ourselves the party of change. Obama was dead on in using that as an example. But, like anyting else candidates say, it was turned into spin by Hillary and her camp. She was wrong.
Gee, Max, you think discussing, instead of attacking, might be a better way, or is the Republicans only answer to anything attack.
What the Dems should be comparing is who is the biggest Socialist, between Obama and Clinton.
That’s the #1 and possibly only issue for Dems.
Which one will raise spending on Social Welfare programs the highest? Tough call. Need to study.
stumper
Posted February 8, 2008 at 2:17 pm | Permalink
Gee, Max, you think discussing, instead of attacking, might be a better way, or is the Republicans only answer to anything attack.
——————————————-
You must not have read MY post:
Max
Posted February 8, 2008 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
I say this whole debate on attacks on Women and Blacks is just a diversion. No one in the Mass Media wants to put a magnifying glass on the record of either Clinton or Obama.
Well, here’s their records:
http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
I already posted 6 Top Issues yesterday Stumper, and where Hillary Clinton stands on those 6 issues.
You never replied with your Top 6 Issues. Sorry if I missed it.
Or maybe you thought Hillary:
1. Will promise to balance the Federal budget.
(After Bush is gone, this returns to a non-issue for Democrats)
2. Will not push through the largest tax increase in the history of the USA.
3. Will pull US troops out of Iraq on or before 12/31/2009.
4. Will provide details on her HillaryCare plan before the election, to include a)Details of what is Covered and what is Excluded, b)Details on Premium Costs, c)Details on the annual cost to the Federal Government.
5. Will not sign legislation that will effectively ban handguns and all semi-automatic shotguns and rifles.
6. Will solve the Social Security/Medicare fiscal crisis.
“So does Putin. So does Ahmadinejad.”
Which orifice did you yank that one out of, Max?
Putin is feared, with good reason.
Ahmadickhead won’t even win reelection in Iran.
So much for inspiration.
“5. Will not sign legislation that will effectively ban handguns and all semi-automatic shotguns and rifles.”
And just HOW is that legislation going to get to Hillary’s desk?
And if it did, it would mean that YOUR elected representatives voted for it.
Not likely.
Sheeeeeeeeesh……………….
Please do “discuss” the records of Clinton and Obama.
And also “discuss” the promoises of Clinton and Obama.
Are their promises consistent with their record?
In other words, have they actually DONE anything in the past that would make you believe that what they SAY they will do in the future, is true?
Do their promises make sense, are they realistic, and are they well documented with detail? Or are their promises just hollow sound bites to make you feel good about voting for them?
For example, during their vast experience in the Senate and their prior careers, did either Clinton or Obama introduce any legislation requiring National Healthcare?
If not, then why do they promise this now?
WSClark
Posted February 8, 2008 at 2:31 pm | Permalink
“5. Will not sign legislation that will effectively ban handguns and all semi-automatic shotguns and rifles.”
And just HOW is that legislation going to get to Hillary’s desk?
————————————————–
Clark, the Democrats HAVE already, and WILL continue to introduce such legislation. Where have you been?
————————————————-
Anti-Gun Legislation in the 110th Congress
H.R. 1022, Going Beyond The Infamous Clinton Gun Ban
Introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), H.R. 1022 would revive the discredited Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that studies by the Congressional Research Service, congressionally-mandated studies, and studies by state and local law enforcement agencies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a minute percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.
Reauthorizing the Clinton ban would be bad enough. The guns that it temporarily banned–very widely used for target shooting, hunting and home protection–are still used in only a small percentage of crime. But McCarthy`s “other purposes” would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns. For more information see:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=213&issue=019.
Alas, I remain a voice in the wilderness –
I addressed your “Top 6 Issues” yesterday, “ksgrm.” Pretty much quashed your straw man arguments.
But that’s okay. I’m an old hand an blogs and internet dialog. I learned a long time ago that when people don’t respond it’s likely they’ve got nothing.
As much as “ksfarmgrrl” has tried to accuse me of being anti-Hillary, and as much as I’ve tried to explain to her that I’m looking for the best *candidate* in the 2008 election, she tries to portray me as anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-”ksfarmgrrl.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
I don’t know “J R” from Adam, but his abject hatred (not altogether unwarranted, I grant you) for all things Republic Party-oriented, seems to me to have tainted a rational look at the political dynamics of 2008. Barack isn’t cozying up with Tom DeLay and Rush Limbaugh, but there are lots of people who aren’t as politically aware as we are who consider themselves “independent.” And Obama is bringing them out, even in Kansas, even through winter storms.
I posted upthread — and was ignored — the Time magazine poll that shows Hillary vs. McCain resulting in a virtual tie; and Barack v. McCain resulting in a 58-43% Democratic victory.
That should mean something to somebody.
Anti-Gun Legislation in the 110th Congress
S. 77, The Firearms Dealer Harassment Act
Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-N.Y.) has introduced S. 77, the “Anti-Gun Trafficking Penalties Enhancement Act of 2007.” A more accurate title would be the “Firearms Dealer Harassment Act.” Here`s why:
First, S.77 would require that confidential Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) records on firearms traces be turned over–on demand–to any government entity, for any purpose. (Currently, information from firearms traces can only be used in bona fide criminal investigations by law enforcement agencies.)
S. 77 would require that these records be made available to any government agency for any reason, or for no stated reason whatsoever, without any justification or respect for the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners.
S. 77 would also unleash the federal government to harass FFL holders at will, for any reason, as often as it chooses.
Finally–and perhaps most ominously–S. 77 would define certain firearm violations as “racketeering activity” under the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act” (RICO), allowing massive criminal penalties and civil suits.
For more information on S. 77 see
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=210&issue=023.
Anti-Gun Legislation in the 110th Congress
H.R. 96, Aiming At Registering Gun Owners And Putting Gun Shows Out Of Business
Introduced by Rep. Michael Castle (R-Del.), the “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007″imposes bureaucratic restrictions aimed at shutting down gun shows–without fixing real problems of the National Instant Check System (NICS). Despite changes from the Lautenberg juvenile justice amendment of 1999 that it is based on, this bill fails to address gun owners` most significant concerns–and in several areas is even more restrictive than past attempts to regulate gun shows. H.R. 96 makes no real improvements to the NICS system while creating gun owner registration, massive new government red tape and allows harassment of gun show organizers vendors and attendees.
For more information on H.R. 96, see:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=209&issue=014.
Son of a gun, Max, I agree with pretty much all of Obama’s record. Surprise, surprise.
As for your six questions. Again, I don’t read minds, so I have no idea what Hillary’s final solution to all of the above will be. But I can gaurantee you this: She would do a hell of a better job at any of them than your hero Bush is doing.
“H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns. For more information see:”
And this law passed the House and Senate when?
Let’s see. Max, you’re okay with the government spying on you, your financial records and the books you check out at the library, but you don’t want them using gun purchase records in criminal investigations.
Okay, you made your position clear now……..
Corrected Link on HR 1022:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=213&issue=019
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Infamous Clinton Gun Ban
On Feb. 14, 2007, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, “to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.” McCarthy`s choice of words warrants explanation.
Obviously, what she means by “assault weapons ban” is the now-discredited Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that studies by the Congressional Research Service, congressionally-mandated studies, and studies by state and local law enforcement agencies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.
Reauthorizing the Clinton ban would be bad enough. The guns that it temporarily banned–very widely used for target shooting, hunting and home protection–are still used in only a small percentage of crime. But McCarthy`s “other purposes” would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:
Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.
Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s, and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)
All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have “any characteristic that can function as a grip,” and would also ban their main component, called the “receiver.”)
All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have “any characteristic that can function as a grip.
Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 “Garand.”)
Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn`t “sporting,” even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.
65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.
Monkeyhawk posted at 12:42 or so the most compelling argument to support Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton – he will persuade more Independent voters over to his side, which is critically important since McCain is the only Republican candidate who is showing – when the GOP allows it – the ability to attract independents to him. I think the next most important question is, why does he have this ability over Clinton, and over McCain, and should this capacity be applauded and valued? I think the answer to this depends upon whether you think Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress until last year were actually concerned with, and helping solve, problems that directly affect each of us and our families.
MonkeyHawk
Posted February 8, 2008 at 2:54 pm | Permalink
I posted upthread — and was ignored —
That should mean something to somebody.
——————————————–
Yes, it should.
Clark, I didn’t say HR1022 passed. Bush would have vetoed it.
You questioned whether Congress would even consider passing such legislation. It certainly has, and will continue to do so as long as the Pelosi’s, Shumers, McCarthy’s, etc… are in Congress.
With EITHER Clinton or Obama as President, legislation such as HR1022 WOULD be signed by either one.
OK, Kelly,
Here’s the dilemma for me: I’m asking some friends to make a $5 million investment.
I know McCain will destroy that investment.
I know Hillary will protect it.
What will Obama do?
And why can’t I get a straight answer out of ANYBODY in the Obama campaign???
I have too much at stake here. I can’t settle for “maybes”. I need STRAIGHT answers to SIMPLE questions? Why can’t I get them?
MonkeyHawk, the Time poll is another one in a succession of recent polls showing much the same thing; the main difference is that it shows a widening of the gap between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain, and actually a narrowing of the gap between Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton. However, any poll showing anything with reference to an election a bit over 8 months off has little credibility with me.
“mrcontroversy” –
I’m unaware of the details of your investment. Can you link me to when you explained it?
Or outline what you’re concerned about?
I certainly don’t speak for Barack in any official capacity, but perhaps I can help you find the answers you’re looking for.
CURRENT TEST OF SUPPORT FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT
House, Senate members back DC gun owners
The Associated Press
Related Content
Supreme Court
WASHINGTON –Bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate are backing gun owners in a landmark Supreme Court case.
The court next month will hear arguments in a challenge to the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, the most important gun rights case at the Supreme Court in 70 years.
Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns for their protection.
“The Supreme Court has the perfect case to affirm … a Second Amendment right to own a gun for self-defense,” Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said at a Washington news conference Thursday.
Nine Democrats in the Senate and 68 in the House joined much larger Republican contingents in signing the brief, which is expected to be filed Friday.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias.
The Bush administration also supports individual gun rights. But the administration said governments still may impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and asked the justices to send the case back to lower courts without deciding whether the handgun ban fails that test.
Hutchison and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who also signed the brief, agreed that some restrictions are valid but said the court should declare the handgun ban unconstitutional and set a clear limit beyond which governments may not go to restrict gun ownership.
http://www.charlotte.com/559/story/482945.html
These Congressment Support the 2nd Amendment
Where’s Clinton and Obama????????????????????
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3451
I think SCOTUS should hold the DC law unconstitutional under the “individual rights’ portion of the Second Amendment; state that governments may impose reasonable restrictions on ownership and possession of firearms and other weapons, with some non-exclusive examples (which would be in dicta, as I read the questions before SCOTUS), reserving specific circumstances for later cases after providing a test for “reasonableness”.
“With EITHER Clinton or Obama as President, legislation such as HR1022 WOULD be signed by either one.”
There are those on the far left that would like to ban all firearms.
There are those on the far right that would like to make any weapon legal without ID check.
Neither is going to happen.
“It certainly has, and will continue to do so as long as the Pelosi’s, Shumers, McCarthy’s, etc… are in Congress.”
Has any of these bills you mention even gotten out of committee? Has any of these bills made it to the Floor?
There are idiots of all stripes that introduce bills – most are just for show and not for go.
A few years back, a Rep wanted to introduce a bill that would require that automobile manufacturers equip the rear of vehicles with lights to indicate braking, accelerating, coasting, going straight, turning, etc.
Guess how far that one got…………
Majority of Hill Stands Against D.C. Gun Ban
Members to File Friend-of-the-Court Brief in 2nd Amendment Case Before Justices
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 8, 2008
A majority of the Senate and more than half of the members of the House will file a brief today urging the Supreme Court to uphold a ruling that the District’s handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020703689.html
Majority of Hill Stands Against D.C. Gun Ban
Members to File Friend-of-the-Court Brief in 2nd Amendment Case Before Justices
The MAJORITY OF CONGRESS stands up for the 2nd Amendment today.
But NOT Clinton.
But NOT Obama.
While most gun owners are responsible people, there are still too many who don’t have a clue. Which is why we are seeing children shooting children in schools, crimes being commited by gun owners, legal or otherwise and the inevitable stupid “I didn’t know it was loaded” shooting.
THAT is what is driving the bills in congress to ban weapons. And THAT is the reason some of the bills have a chance of passing. So don’t blame the Democrats for wanting to pass gun control, blame the morons who should never have had a gun in their hands for any reason.
“The MAJORITY OF CONGRESS stands up for the 2nd Amendment today.”
By your argument, Max, you know that there will be no legislation for Hillary to sign that would ban handguns, etc.
So why even bring it up? The point is moot.
http://www.gunowners.org/110anatb.htm
FIREARMS LEGISLATION IN THE 110th CONGRESS
Yeah, we need more gun laws to make us safe. We already have 20,000 gun laws on the books.
Why not enforce the 20,000 existing gun laws first? Then pass more gun laws if you think that will help.
Good luck, MonkeyHawk:
1. Will Obama support a permanent reopening of the Class A Television window? It would make common sense for him to do so–after all, it was mismanagement of the first window by the Clinton administration that left so many stations out in the cold. Clinton supports reopening the window, McCain–the senator from Cox Communications–opposes it.
2. Will Obama support must-carry for Class A within the Grade A contour? Hillary supports, McCain opposes?
3. Will Obama support an increased localism requirement for license renewal? Both Hillary and McCain support this.
4. Would Obama support expanding the localism requirement to cable carriage? Hillary reportedly supports (this issue cropped up since the last time I’ve had contact with her staff), McCain opposes.
5. Would Obama support stricter limits on what cable companies can charge for leased channels? (Currently, Cox wants $70,000 a month in Wichita; a friend of mine in Pittsburg saw Comcast raise his rate from $38,000 to $850,000 a month.) Hillary supports, McCain opposes–judging from his contributor list, I assume Obama also supports.
Research done in part at WSU shows that if these were enacted, up to 117,000 new jobs could be created across the country (240-400 in Wichita), since every job in broadcasting creates 5.1 total jobs, and every job in cable only creates 3.2.
The annual Ball State study of newsroom salaries shows that broadcasters average $8000 a year more than their cable counterparts.
I hope that helps your understanding of my dilemma.
oops, Pittsburgh… you can tell I’m a native Kansan!
Behold, I look around me, and what do I see??
Numerous one-trick ponies, all wanting to force me down roads where I dont want to be!!
How terrible for our country!!
Hey, Max, MOST folks don’t really give a good god damn about your guns.
We don’t want to take them away from you.
We really don’t care if you dress up like Travis Bickle when you go out on Saturday night.
We really don’t care if you are packing a .357 under one arm, a .45 under the other, a razor in your shoe and have a RPG launcher jammed up your butt.
We really don’t care.
Buy a ICBM with nuk-lee-ar warheads on it.
Just don’t point your toys at me.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3451
John McCain DID stand up for the 2nd Amendment today.
WSClark
Posted February 8, 2008 at 3:26 pm | Permalink
“The MAJORITY OF CONGRESS stands up for the 2nd Amendment today.”
By your argument, Max, you know that there will be no legislation for Hillary to sign that would ban handguns, etc.
So why even bring it up? The point is moot.
————————————————
If I can’t count on the President of the United States to defend the 2nd Amendment, how can I count on him or her to “Uphold and Defend” the rest of the US Constitution?
WSClark
Posted February 8, 2008 at 3:34 pm | Permalink
Hey, Max, MOST folks don’t really give a good god damn about your guns.
We don’t want to take them away from you.
We really don’t care if you dress up like Travis Bickle when you go out on Saturday night.
We really don’t care if you are packing a .357 under one arm, a .45 under the other, a razor in your shoe and have a RPG launcher jammed up your butt.
We really don’t care.
Buy a ICBM with nuk-lee-ar warheads on it.
Just don’t point your toys at me.
————————————————–
Upholding and Defending the US Constitution Clark is not important for a President?
It’s not just about guns Clark.
Which other Constitutional Amendments will Clinton/Obama trash and burn?
First of all Max, the President doesnt take an oath to “uphold and defend” the constitution…
The 2nd Amendment Chas is no more of a one-trick pony then the 1st Amendment.
The President of the United States should not be allowed to pick and choose which Amendments to support, and which ones to trample.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
But then again, FREEDOM, is no longer a word in the vocabulary of Socialist Liberal Democrats.
You’d rather sacrifice free Government provided comfort for Freedom.
Not me.
Chas.
Posted February 8, 2008 at 3:42 pm | Permalink
First of all Max, the President doesnt take an oath to “uphold and defend” the constitution…
———————————————-
Obviously Clinton/Obama will NOT, based on their record of attacking the 2nd Amendment.
Also, not sure if either one will swear on a bible.
Well, I am glad to see that you know about that one trick pony there Max… Nobody wants your guns Max… honest… we just dont CARE!! We are much more concerned with those who want to take away our rights to dissent, and to challenge the POTUS when he/she is WRONG, without being hauled off to some concentration camp, or termed by Cabinet members as traitors, or worse…
THAT’S what I worry about!!
“Which other Constitutional Amendments will Clinton/Obama trash and burn?”
And how is President Obama going to trash and burn the Second Amendment?
Has SENATOR Obama introduced legislation to ban private ownership of guns?
Nope.
Since a president cannot manufacture legislation, just how the Hell is he going “trash” the Second Amendment?
Did you miss Civics 101 in High School, Max?
Thanks Regular.
It’s not “uphold and defend”, it is:
“preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”
Max, please feel free to READ other posts… It will save you ranting so bloody much!!
We are much more concerned with those who want to take away our rights to dissent, and to challenge the POTUS when he/she is WRONG, without being hauled off to some concentration camp, or termed by Cabinet members as traitors, or worse…
THAT’S what I worry about!! Chas
—————————————————-
Me too. And how would you stop such an action?
No one has taken away your right to dissent, Chas.
You dissent here 24/7.
“Also, not sure if either one will swear on a bible.”
Jeez, Max, BOTH did when they were sworn in as Senators. Why would they change now?
Or are you going to repeat that stupid story that Obama is a SECRET Muslim that was sworn in on a copy of the Qu’an?
Max, you want to take a guess as to why the President doesnt take an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution??? Seriously, you want to take a rational, reasoned guess??
“Me too. And how would you stop such an action?”
Elect a Democrat.
Oh, and Max, NOBODY is required to take their oath of office on a Bible… Please read the entire document??
Waits for the explanation from Chas…
Carves initials into a “Hillary” poster.
Thats right, Regular… and nobody is taking away Max’s guns either…
Max, what socio/economic group was the spark, and leadership behind the French Revolution??
Do you remember that tidbit of history??
Max, a couple of other reasons that neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama signed the amicus brief:\
1) Neither returned to DC, being on the campaign trail and not having the luxury Sen. McCain has at present;
2) One or both were in DC, but neither is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court.
3) They don’t agree with the position taken in the brief, which is a long way from saying they don’t support the Constitution.
“You can pry my cheesecake from my cold dead fingers.”
I love that Vaughn!! I guess you have to be a member of the Bar of the SCOTUS to sign on to a brief… Love it!!
Hey, Max, you couldnt have signed it either!! LOL
Charles, I believe that to be the rule, even on an amicus brief. I could not have signed either, as I am not a member of the bar of SCOTUS (never taken the time nor spent the money to do so).
OK just got this in email… hang on to your hats!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7M9sjRLCtQ
Alberto Gonzales may be long gone, but the Bush Administration continues its executive overreach with the new Attorney General.
Yes, sir, I believe you are quite right…
MSNBC is calling McCain the sure and certain Nominee of the Republicans.
Bill Clinton used to be member of the bar for the Supreme Court…
BTW, nothing too startling about such a rule. One generally must be admitted to practice in a certain jurisdiction in order to sign pleadings, briefs, etc. One may be admitted to practice pro haec vice, but I don’t know that one may be admitted on that basis at SCOTUS. Freely admit that it has been a long time since I looked at the rules.
True, Regular. That doesn’t mean that Hilary is or isn’t, for example. Many attorneys are admitted to the SCOTUS bar, but knowing that I will likely never have a case that goes up that far, I never did.
Vaughn says:
“3) They don’t agree with the position taken in the brief, which is a long way from saying they don’t support the Constitution.”
Spot on Vaughn… And THAT is why no President takes an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution… but rather, to “preserve, protect and defend” it…
Pundits have been bashing on Romney, and Edwards, and Clinton, and others, (say Bloomberg) for having huge treasure chests to use to run for the Presidency…
So, just for grins, who was the LAST person elected President who didnt have several millions of $$$$ behind them in order to get elected?? Hmmmm???
Nobody want to address the question I raised about the force behind the French Revolution??
Vaughn Tolle
2) One or both were in DC, but neither is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court.
—————————————————-
Vaughn, I don’t beleive all 55 Senators and
250 House members who DID sign the Amicus Brief are even attorneys, much less a member of the bar fo the Supreme Court.
Is John McCain an attorney?
Here’s THE list:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/congressmen_amicus_brief_0208.html?sid=ST2008020800127
3) They don’t agree with the position taken in the brief, which is a long way from saying they don’t support the Constitution. Vaughn
————————————————–
Did you read any news report where Clinton or Obama gave reasons for not returned to DC for this vote, or why they would not support it, or is this your opinion only?
Max, my opinion only.
Max, do you think this is what the Democrats have in mind when trying to limit guns in this country? I couldn’t agree more: enforce all the gun laws now on the books, and I imagine the death rate via guns would drop dramatically.
The following is just wrong on too many levels. There is NO justification for any of this. To not attempt to stop the slaughter is inhuman. So don’t blame the Democrats, in fact, you should be applauding them, because just what is your party doing to stop it:
March 7, 2001: WILLIAMSPORT, Pennsylvania — An eighth-grade girl has been arrested after a shooting at a Bishop Neumann Junior-Senior High School, a Roman Catholic school in Williamsport, Pennsylvania that left another 8th grade girl wounded. She says that the shooting was due to repeated teasing.
May 11, 2000: A seventh-grade student who left the Prairie Grove Junior High school Prairie Grove, Arkansas in an apparent fit of rage and a police officer were injured Thursday after shooting each other in an altercation in a hay field north of the student’s school.
February 29, 2000: 6-year-old Kayla Rolland shot dead at Buell Elementary School near Flint, Mich. The assailant is identified as a 6-year-old boy with a .32-caliber handgun. Mount Morris Township, Mich.
Dec. 6, 1999: A 13-year-old student in Fort Gibson, Okla., allegedly arrived at school and opened fire with his father’s 9 mm semiautomatic handgun. There were no life-threatening injuries but five of his classmates were injured, four from gunshot wounds and a fifth who suffered bruises in the chaos.
Nov. 19, 1999: A 12-year-old boy allegedly shot and killed a female classmate at the end of lunch hour outside a middle school in Deming, N.M., about 33 miles from the Mexican border. The boy was wearing a camouflage jacket when he allegedly fired the single shot from a .22-caliber handgun.
April 20, 1999: Two young men wearing long, black trench coats opened fire in a suburban high school in Littleton, Colo., injuring as many as 20 students. In all, 15 were killed, including the two gunmen.
June 15, 1998: A male teacher and a female guidance counselor are shot in a hallway at a Richmond, Va., high school. The man suffers an injury to the abdomen that wasn’t life threatening; the woman is reportedly grazed.
May 21, 1998: 15-year-old boy shot six classmates at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia a suburban of Atlanta. He used weapons he stole from a locked gun cabinet in his home.
May 21, 1998: A 15-year-old student in Springfield, Ore., expelled the day before for bringing a gun to school, allegedly opens fire in the school cafeteria. Two students are killed. The suspect’s parents are later found shot dead in their home.
May 21, 1998: Three sixth-grade boys had a “hit list” and were plotting to kill fellow classmates on the last day of school in a sniper attack during a false fire alarm, police in St. Charles, Mo., say.
May 21, 1998: A 15-year-old boy dies from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head in Onalaska, Wash. Earlier in the day, the boy boarded a high school bus with a gun in hand, ordered his girlfriend off the bus and took her to his home, where he shot himself.
May 21, 1998: A 15-year-old girl is shot and wounded at a suburban Houston high school when a gun in the backpack of a 17-year-old classmate goes off in a biology class. The boy is charged with a third-degree felony for taking a gun to school.
May 19, 1998: Two boys are suspended from school in Johnston, R.I., after being accused of writing and handing out threatening notes to classmates. The notes said things such as, “All your friends are dead.” The boys are ordered to remain out of school until they have been evaluated to determine whether they are dangerous.
May 19, 1998: Three days before his graduation, an 18-year-old honor student allegedly opens fire in a parking lot at Lincoln County High School in Fayetteville, Tenn., killing a classmate who was dating his ex-girlfriend.
April 28, 1998: Two teenage boys are shot to death and a third is wounded as they played basketball at a Pomona, Calif., elementary school hours after classes had ended. A 14-year-old boy is charged; the shooting is blamed on rivalry between two groups of youths.
April 24, 1998 : A 48-year-old science teacher is shot to death in front of students at graduation dance in Edinboro, Pa. A 14-year-old student at James W. Parker Middle School is charged.
March 24, 1998: Four girls and a teacher are shot to death and 10 others wounded during a false fire alarm at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Ark., when two boys, ages 11 and 13, open fire from the woods. Both are convicted in juvenile court of murder and can be held up to age 21.
Dec. 15, 1997: Stamps, Arkansas – An AR eighth grader was arrested and charged as an adult after he confessed to shooting and wounded two of his fellow students as he hid in the woods outside of a high school.
Dec. 1, 1997: Three students are killed and five others wounded while they take part in a prayer circle in a hallway at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky. A 14-year-old student pleads guilty but mentally ill to murder and is serving life in prison. One of the wounded girls is left paralyzed.
Oct. 1, 1997: A 16-year-old outcast in Pearl, Miss., is accused of killing his mother, then going to Pearl High School and shooting nine students. Two of them die, including the suspect’s ex-girlfriend. The 16-year-old is sentenced to life in prison. Two others await trial on accessory charges.
Feb. 19, 1997: A 16-year-old student opens fire with a shotgun in a common area at the Bethel, Alaska, high school, killing the principal and a student. Two other students are wounded. Authorities later accuse two other students of knowing the shootings would take place. Evan Ramsey was sentenced to two 99-year terms.
Feb. 2, 1996: A 14-year-old boy wearing a trench coat walks into algebra class with a hunting rifle and allegedly opens fire, killing the teacher and two students. A third student is injured during the shooting at a junior high school in Moses Lake, Wash.
Max, I took a quick look at the SCOTUS rules concerning briefs in general and amicus briefs in particular. It appears that counsel sign/print their names on the brief. It does not appear from my brief review that non-attorneys or non-parties not appearing pro se may sign the brief itself.
Now, I freely admit there may be something I missed in my quick review. I would suggest (BTW, you are correct; Sen. McCain is not an attorney) that the brief itself wasn’t signed by all the Senators and Members indicated; that this was a symbolic thing to show their support, but once the brief is filed, it would be possible to ascertain whether each one of them signed it; and, if so, in what capacity. Another point, to submit pleadings (and a brief is such), the pleading must be signed by counsel admitted to practice before SCOTUS, or by a pro se party. I didn’t find any exception to this.
Max, I realize I’m taking a legalistic view here. :-)
JM, I see nothing being DONE except for the endless lists of new laws proposed every year. (See above scores of new proposed bills)
You can pass 100,000 new laws if that makes you “feel” better and then you can say you are “DOING” something about murders in America. However, not 1 life will be saved by passing laws which are NOT ENFORCED.
What you see the Democrats DOING is writing numerous new Bills that would severely restrict the rights of law abiding citizens IF the new laws were to be enforced.
You cannot pass a law and stop murders in America any more so then you can pass a law banning Global Warming, or mandating everyone be HAPPY.
All the proposed new gun laws do, is interfere with the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, and the natural rights of man to defend himself from the criminals who are loose on America’s streets.
But the underlying goal of the Clinton/Obama gun-banning types is to ensure that Government has Supreme Power over The People. And thus those in power in Government today, can assure themselves that they will remain in power.
And that’s something you mice who chase the cheese at the ring of a bell cannot understand.
Vaughn I did find somewhere, that State and Federal governmental bodies could file an amicus brief.
I would guess then that Congress would be included in that category.
I’d really like to hear from Obama and Clinton their answers as to why they did not sign or support this brief.
I bet they are never asked.
Max, likely so. However, under the general briefing rules I looked at, there was a strict requirement that the brief be signed by at least one counsel of record, and such other counsel as may be desired. To be counsel, one must be admitted. Again, just my legalistic opinion.
Max, are you suggesting that there is something wrong with two senators who disagree with a brief filed in SCOTUS?? or what??
“But the underlying goal of the Clinton/Obama gun-banning types is to ensure that Government has Supreme Power over The People. And thus those in power in Government today, can assure themselves that they will remain in power.”
You know, Max, I agree on the laws not being enforced. So who is to blame for that? Clinton? Obama? Or is it that we have weak leaders who cater to special interests at the expense of rule of law? Why is congress wasting its time on baseball, and not seeing to it teeth are put into the current laws? And don’t use the “democrats are in control” crap, as any thinking person knows it takes both sides to pass laws with the current balance.
Wouldn’t you then want leaders who will put teeth in existing laws, be they either party? Baring that, wouldn’t you want some one who could use his or her position to see that the rule of law is followed, and be some one you could trust to follow the rule of law him or herself? It sure as hell isn’t the current leader.
I really don’t care if a law is passed severally limiting guns. I don’t have a fear my government is going to become big brother, which is what I think Bush would be happy being. And if such ENFORCED law stops people like the one who shot and killed those little girls in a tiny schoolhouse, then I’m all for it.
Chas.
Posted February 8, 2008 at 6:16 pm | Permalink
Max, are you suggesting that there is something wrong with two senators who disagree with a brief filed in SCOTUS?? or what??
————————————————
Chas there’s nothing wrong with the brief, IF you believe in the Individual Right to Bear Arms as described in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
I’m not suggesting, I am saying, that any Presidential candidate who does NOT agree with the 2nd Amendment or any other part of the US Constitution, should not run for President.
For it is the job of the President of the United States to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.
If Clinton and Obama are not willing to do that, then neither one should accept the job of President.
But don’t worry, I’m sure neither Clinton nor Obama, will be asked to provide specific reasons why they did not sign-off on the brief supporting the Individual Right to Bear Arms, which WAS signed by 55 other Senators and 250 House members.
Freedom is not an issue for the Democrats. It’s assumed they do NOT support Freedom.
Hey Clark,
Sorry I couldn’t back to you last night. Was wondering in what way stating that hillary is going to do the same thing as what romney was going to do as far as bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US is answering the question I posed about how hillary is going to do it.
I would like to think that there is alledgedly a difference between hillary and romney. If you don’t know hillary’s thoughts, do you know barak’s?
Here is the Summary from the Amicus Brief signed by 55 Senators and 250 House members who do support the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
For some reason, this wasn’t important enough for Clinton or Obama to sign.
And here’s a link to the actual Brief:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/content/politics/DC_Gun_Rights_Amicus_Brief_020808.pdf?sid=ST2008020800127
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Second Amendment provides: “A well
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Congress adopted that wording and proposed it to the States in 1789. It became part of the Bill of Rights which the States ratified in 1791. As the text and the drafting history demonstrate, the Amendment was intended to guarantee the right of individuals to possess and keep ordinary firearms.
You know, if you are running for President, and you do NOT support part of the US Constitution, you should come right out and say that you are in favor of amended that portion of the US Constitution that you will not support.
Just be honest about it Clinton.
Just be honest about it Obama.
Tell us all you are against the 2nd Amendment, and that has President, you will actively work to repeal it from the Constitution.
They don’t DARE tell us what they really think.
(But their past actions and past statements give them away.)
Blah…blah…blah. No one’s going to take your gun, Max. Relax.
Noonan is right.
Windy, but right, about Obama and Clinton:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Really President Roosevelt, we want to continue warm and friendly relations. (Said the Japanese delegation sent to Washington DC just before December 7, 1941)
See these Bills (referenced above) introduced by our current Congress Mary, if you think it can’t happen:
HR1022
HR96
S77
If what you say is true Mary, why didn’t Obama or Clinton sign the Amicus Brief submitted by the majority of Congress today?
Say JM 5:02, these are just for you! You want to go back 10 years? (Nobody else should look!)
The Topeka Capital Journal, Topeka, KS, 01/23/07
Kansas’ concealed carry law took effect January 1, 2007. On January 19, two armed men burst into a gas station owned by Dean Yee. According to police, they twice demanded money from Yee while holding him at gunpoint. A customer inside the store, however, had a concealed-carry permit. He shouted for the robbers to drop their weapons. When they refused, he shot one suspect before the other fled. Station owner Yee feels lucky to be alive. “I would have been shot in the chest,” he told 27 News. Kansas Sen. Phil Journey, (R-Haysville) added,” Hopefully this will put other criminals and thugs on notice that Kansas is a different state today than it was just 20 days ago.”
————————————————–
Independence Daily Reporter, Independence, KS, 07/12/06
Police say a man may have broken into a residence in conjunction with a plan to rob a local bank. When the homeowner confronted the suspect he was ordered to wake his wife and get the keys to the bank where she is employed. The homeowner went to the bedroom, leading the intruder to believe he was waking his wife. But instead he told his wife to call 9-1-1 and grabbed a handgun from the nightstand. He told the burglar to raise his hands and drop any weapons he had. Reportedly, he dropped a 12-inch butcher knife to the floor before sheriff’s deputies arrived on the scene.
————————————————–
Arkansas City Traveler, Arkansas City, Kan., 10/1/04
When three men tried to force their way into an Arkansas City, Kans., house, Jody Foster acted. Foster called the police, retrieved a handgun and fired at the intruders, wounding one in the left hand. Police responding to the call apprehended all three suspects.
————————————————–
The Wichita Eagle, Wichita, KS, 05/23/02
A Wichita, Kan., smoke shop owner shot and wounded an armed robber in his store after the man tried to shoot him. Lorenzo Harding, owner of H&H Cigarette Shop, told police he was with a customer when an armed man burst into his shop. The man reportedly pulled a mask down to cover his face, said Sgt. Jeff Davis. “Initial reports are that he was trying to fire the gun, but the gun jammed,” Davis said. The owner then pulled a handgun from under his counter and fired one shot at the man.
Say JM 5:02, these are just for you! You want to go back 10 years? (Nobody else should look!)
The Topeka Capital-Journal, Topeka, KS, 2/9/01
A woman was traveling alone on Interstate 70 in Kansas when a delivery truck driver got her attention by flashing his vehicle’s lights and motioning toward the rear of her car. When she pulled over, the truck parked in front. Before getting out to check her vehicle’s rear lights, though, the woman took the precaution of slipping her handgun into her purse. When she returned to her car, the truck driver used his foot to prevent her from closing the door and then twice asked for a kiss, according to police. The woman escaped the potentially violent advance by simply intoning, “I’ve got a gun” and driving off. Police confronted the driver as he made his next delivery.
————————————————–
The Eagle, Wichita, KS, 4/26/97
After hearing a late-night knock at the door of his Wichita, Kansas, home, Harvey Green went to investigate with his Smith & Wesson .357 revolver in hand. It was a good thing, too, as a pair of men asked to use the phone, then brandished a rifle and attempted to force their way inside after Green politely refused their request. “I fired one shot through the glass of the front door, and I hit one of them,” Green said. The suspects fled and a wounded 18-year-old male was later admitted to an area hospital, where police apprehended him. Green, a champion pistol shot with a house full of trophies to prove it, said, “I could have finished him pretty easily. I still had five rounds left. But he was running away. I no longer considered him a threat. Guns sometimes save people’s lives.”
————————————————–
The Eagle, Wichita, KS, 1/1/97
An alert postman in rural Reno County, Kansas, rounded up a posse of sorts after witnessing a suspicious vehicle cruising up the driveway of a home where he knew the owners were away. The postal worker and four armed, local residents returned to the home to find it being burglarized by two men. They ordered the pair to lie on the ground and alerted sheriff’s deputies, who soon arrived on the scene.
————————————————–
The Star, Kansas City, KS, 10/25/96
It was five against one at a Kansas City, Kansas, snack shop, but the armed citizen emerged unscathed. One of the would-be thieves was not so lucky. It all happened when five men, some of them armed, entered Columbus Park Sundries and attempted to take money from the cash register. The clerk grabbed his own gun and shot at the suspects, who promptly vacated the premises. A short while later, a man who police believe to be one of the suspects appeared at a nearby hospital with a gunshot wound to his back. It was the second time in four years a Columbus Park employee had been forced to shoot a bandit.
Say JM 5:02, these are just for you! You want to go back 10 years? (Nobody else should look!)
The Eagle, Wichita, KS, 12/17/95
The justice system failed to protect Wichita, Kansas, resident Carla Grayson from a violent ex-boyfriend. After three years of physical abuse, 19 arrest warrants [all of which went ignored by her tormentor as he repeatedly neglected to appear in court], and the filing of no-contact orders, Grayson put an end to the situation. When the abuser burst into her home, she shot him dead. No charges were filed.
————————————————–
The Eagle, Wichita, KS, 1/11/95
When Thedles Cannon, 71, first heard the crash, he thought a car had wrecked outside of his Wichita, Kansas, home. Then he realized an intruder had actually kicked in his front door. As his wife dialed 911, Cannon made his way downstairs with his .357 Mag. and confronted the burglar. When told to “Freeze,” the intruder instead lunged at Cannon, who shot and seriously wounded the criminal.
Darn it JM! These are all just Kansas! I know you posted from all over the USA over 10 years.
I’ve got 100 more just from Kansas to post, then I can start posting from the other 49 states.
It might take awhile though.
JM would have all these innocent people who were attacked by burglers and crooks disarmed!
He’d rather see these people defenseless and killed in their own homes.
Right, Max, I just love seeing more people killed by guns that are on the street because current laws aren’t being enforced. Don’t put your red neck spin on my, dude. I, at least, understand the consequences of dead children: laws that may inhibit your ability to own that particular gun you might want. And believe me, I also understand a persons right to defend their home.
My point, which you are trying to spin, is if the laws both of us seem to want enforced, were enforced, just how many times would a person find it necessary to defend his home. I would venture an educated guess the number would be minimal at worst; if the laws were enforced.
We should be able to mount sub machine guns on our cars, right? Maybe people would drive better?
I’ve always wondered if Jesus were alive today what kind of gun he would use.
Oh yea, I’ve already answered my own question months ago, he would use an Uzi, because its made by Israelis.
When ya gonna go out and buy yourself one of them neat new Nukuler powered weapons, Max??
Maybe you and “W” could take em down to the Crawford Ranch, and test fire em??
Lot’s of evasive and deflective, and in some cases ridiculous responses from the Libs, but nobody has answered the question:
Why did Clinton/Obama not agree to support the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution yesterday when the majority of Congress signed an Amicus Brief submitted to the US Supreme Court in support of the 2nd Amendment?
We know you are going to give us your answer, Max. And your answer is all you are willing to listen to anyway. I’m not into futility; see it as a waste of our time.
white elephant, have you ever read Jesus General?
Google it. You’ll laugh yer ass off.
Yes, the white woman running for president, must be very TRICKY in her public attacks on the BLACK man running against her.
25 Trackbacks
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
Jessie…
Truer word have never been uttered, indeed. Your point is sound and excellent. Thanks for sharing….
Eric…
To all the uninitiated out there – read this and take heed. This is good stuff. Thanks….
Jack…
Ok, I’m not in complete agreement with this, but I see your point. Thanks for sharing….
Eric…
Thanks for sharing. I agree and would add that th…
Jack…
Truer word have never been uttered, indeed. Your point is sound and excellent. Thanks for sharing….
Jessie…
and readers, Let?s DIGG this Blog post so we can get more blog posts FAST!! Good stuff….
mini attachments…
The skid loader reshapes the ramp making it steeper and longer as the excavation deepens. At the time of the incident, the victim borrowed…
pearl knife…
g. Modern stabilized and laminated woods have largely overcome these problems. Today Damascus is actually made by a pattern-welded process…
Jessie…
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll write a post on this on my blog soon….
Deborah…
…Technology and proper training enable the receptionist to answer each call as if they were an employee of your company……
Eric…
Thanks for the info. By the way, I am a big fan of your site. Keep up the great work….
Jack from How to Get Your Girlfriend Back…
And there is only one happiness in life: to love and be loved. Typically…
Dating Sites RICHARDSON…
I don’t know about you folks, but that tickled me a bit. It actually…
Jack…
Thanks, this is good stuff. You are spot on….
french female names…
France also maintains control over a number of small non-permanently inhabited islands in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean: Bassas…
georgia used car dealer…
and DMG finally merged as the Daimler-Benz company, baptizing all of its automobiles Mercedes Benz honoring the most important model…
Teen Girls Teen Titans Raven Tiffany Teen…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…
Payday Loans Online…
…
auto repair shop…
Mechanics are better lovers…
Jessie…
Brilliant information and great site to visit. Informative and attractive layout….
Jack…
Man, your mind fascinates me. Thanks again for sharing….
ben foster ellen…
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..
Gay Dating Service…
Reading the blog and the otherposts I see things that are close to home. I have added you to my digg account for bookmarking….
Paige Davis…
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !…