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
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
287 Comments
Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes.
by
Tishrei 13, 5769, 10/12/2008
Someone is lying. According to Obama’s Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. -This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself. Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and he has an impressive background in his activities as a democrat, but his support for the party seemingly stops when it comes to his trust in Barack Hussein Obama.
Much more here:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/3074
Obama’s mother, S. Ann Dunham, was born here in Wichita at St. Francis Hospital about 1941 as I recall from our research. About 20 years later, her parents were living in Hawaii when she met Barack Obama Sr. and got pregnant. Since he reputedly already had a wife in Kenya, the chances would be zero that Ann Dunham would fly around the world away from her parents with whom she was close to give birth to her first child.
Sorry HLP but good try.
Today’s daily ‘cut and paste’ for you children was a very tough choice. I thought Ann Coulter’s column yesterday was exceptionally timely and funny. She tied the ‘chosen one’s’ endless and pointless speech to Congress in with a rant against public education and teachers.
On the other hand, some of the libs seem to think that you have to be ‘vetted’ by some government agency to either run for the presidency or be the president. (from JMWalker, “FBI, CIA, NSA, PTA, PBA, NFL, NBA, and any other lettered outfit you can think . . .”)
There is no requirement for the government to ‘vet’ presidential candidates. That is the Constitutional duty of the ‘fourth estate’. Unfortunately they spent their time digging through Bristol Palin’s daughter’s trash and discovered that she was the mother of Sarah Palin’s baby. Seems there was nothing of interest going on in Chicago.
So, was our Commander-in-Chief born in Kenya? Probably. But his real daddy was probably Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was also more of a father than the Kenyan Muslim that married his mother then abandoned him and his mother to be raised by his white grand parents.
Ya can’t make this stuff up!
chortle
I’ll bring you Ann tomorrow.
Your new sweetheart Jindal was an anchor baby.
#
Political_mama
Posted February 26, 2009 at 6:27 am | Permalink
Your new sweetheart Jindal was an anchor baby.
_____________________________________
LOL
That means that Jindal qualifies Constitutionally to be president! Your new messiah was born in Kenya!
Wanna see nude pictures of his momma taken by his daddy?
What’s really happening in the stock market.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=008_1201113670
More modern day Robin Hood by Obama our Socialist President.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aOqVquIsiZcc
“Today’s daily ‘cut and paste’ for you children was a very tough choice. I thought Ann Coulter’s column yesterday was exceptionally timely and funny. She tied the ‘chosen one’s’ endless and pointless speech to Congress in with a rant against public education and teachers.”
and in response to soup…
“That means that Jindal qualifies Constitutionally to be president! Your new messiah was born in Kenya!”
Translation: Respond to me children! Classic troll motivation.
Re: HLP
DNFTTbyProxy
Haw, haw, Boxlocks “liveleak” site features soft porn.
Take from those who worked to & saved by doing more taxes our Socialist President has it all wrong. The business people does not need any government help at their expense. Which hurts us all.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262009/postopinion/editorials/obamas_fuzzy_tax_math_157018.htm
“george” –
Socialist?
Perhaps you should try “Maoist.”
(Although it seems to be working, lately, for the Chinese.)
After 30 years of failed Reaganism, you CONs just spew out epithets and meaningless words that scare only you. Americans want government that works for a living.
And government under competent leadership is such a change from BushCo, isn’t it?
We’re building an America capable of drowning Grover Norquist in a bathtub.
If CONs would only bathe….
“Haw, haw, Boxlocks “liveleak” site features soft porn.”—beber
You would know you pervert. I wouldn’t know.
There is nothing in that link and video emailed to me that is remotely porn.
If you explore other interests that’s YOUR perversion.
And now we know the rest of the story about beber.
Bristol Palin has a daughter??????????
I thought she only had boys :)
Obama will BAN guns!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
Jesus…does the swiftboating EVER stop? They can’t find reason to hate him as president, so NOW we have to backtrack to all the nasty lies from desperate attempts to descredit him. Why don’t you guys give it up and start helping in some way to turn our country around…quit the whining, it’s REALLY getting old.
And don’t worry anti..no one is going to take away your toys.
Hank, deal constructively with your anger. Obama is president and you need to get over it. When you cut and paste from rants by right wing pundits, it isn’t effective, it’s like Fred Phelps believing that he’s convincing people to think like him through his crazy actions.
Start acting like a true American and get behind the effort to turn this country in the right direction rather than wasting time with all the personal attacks against our president.
Boy, the Rethugs are desperate if they have to toss in that old debunked story about Obama being born in Kenya. Where’s that Kenyan birth certificate Hank?
United we stand, divided we fall. The polarization encouraged by right wing pundits needs to stop once and for all.
Mary_Caruso
Posted February 26, 2009 at 8:25 am | Permalink
And don’t worry anti..no one is going to take away your toys.
==================
Your absolute blindness is no comfort.
On the other hand, some of the libs seem to think that you have to be ‘vetted’ by some government agency to either run for the presidency or be the president. (from JMWalker, “FBI, CIA, NSA, PTA, PBA, NFL, NBA, and any other lettered outfit you can think . . .”)
============================================
Let’s see: Obama is elected President of the United States, but he’s never been vetted by anybody. One week later he is present for classified briefings by the CIA, NSA and the FBI. So in a period of one week, he is thoroughly vetted by those agencies to the extent he can now be in attendance of top secret security briefings. One week, Hank. That wouldn’t even make sense to someone who can’t even pronounce the word secret.
When I was assigned to missiles, I couldn’t work on them until I was cleared, and that took two months, and that was only a secret clearance. You can’t vet anyone in one week, and they can’t obtain top secret info until they are cleared…period.
I thought you were an intelligent man, but my opinion of you is dropping steadily. I think reading Coulter has done something to your brain. Our current President was born in Hawaii. Thinking he is not is nothing more than wishful thinking by right wing fruitcakes.
Nitwit!
Oh Mary, Guns are not toys.
ksfarmgrrl
Posted February 26, 2009 at 8:04 am | \l “comment-527948″
Bristol Palin has a daughter??????????
I thought she only had boys :)
Now wouldn’t that be a kick to Palin’s pants with both feet! First kick is her daughter saying that abstinence only is not realistic. The other kick would come in the form of Bristol coming out of the closet!
#
ANTI
Posted February 26, 2009 at 8:12 am | Permalink
Obama will BAN guns!
===================================
Assault weapons, as in the reinstatement of the ban dropped by bush in 2004. Reading is fundamental. Try hooked on phonics.
Assault weapons, as in the reinstatement of the ban dropped by bush in 2004. Reading is fundamental. Try hooked on phonics.
============
Since when are semi-automatics NOT guns?
The division must stop.
And all it will take is to stop with the dissenting and go along with everything Obamaco wants.
I think I’ll stick with the division.
Holder: Closing Gitmo won’t be easy
WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday the Guantanamo detention center is a well-run, professional facility that will be difficult to close — but he is still going to do it.
Holder visited the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on Monday and spoke to reporters about his trip during a news conference Wednesday.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-25-holder-gitmo_N.htm?csp=YahooModule_News&POE=click-refer
WELL! I’m glad they figured THAT out before they made a rash, arbitrary decision to close it . . . . oh, wait, they did.
Nevermind.
BTW – ya think the Obama administration is learning that “governing” is turning out to be just a bit different than “campaigning?”
To Holder:
Molon Labe.
Do not read this! A bit of reality speak its a talking point and not a real talking point for many whom use it.
Many whom parrot the talking point of Obama is going to raise taxes by letting the Bush tax cut expire and setting a bench mark of $250, 000.00 a year. Are not in danger of it effecting them and it is at best a long shot that it ever will in their life time. So it ends up the surfs are defending the rich Nobles wealth. But that would make sense if the rich Noble was sharing their wealth to the benefit of the surfs. But are they?
It may come from wishful thinking, like if I were to defend the power ball lottery winners.
“They took the gamble, invested their money and came out a winner. It is wrong to punish them for their success. If anyone is willing to invest their money by buying a lottery ticket then they are entitled to have the fruit of the gamble they took!”. Sound kind of foolish don’t it?
If you happen to make $250, 000.00 a year good on Ya! If not then why are you defending those who do if you are not likely to?
If a man cuts his finger off while slicing salami at work, he blames the restaurant.
If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of lung cancer, your family blames the Tobacco company.
If your neighbour crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, he blames the bartender.
If your grandchildren are brats without manners, you blame television.
If your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you blame the gun manufacturer.
So, when you die while your old wrinkled butt is parked in front of of your computer, I want all of you to blame who…. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Dell, got blame someone else, that’s the American way anymore.
#
ANTI
Since when are semi-automatics NOT guns?
===========================================
They are, but they are not ALL guns, which your post had the clear intentions of stating. Why not just say Obama wants to ban certain assault weapons? Because that would lock down your attempts to rile up the gun owners? That’s like saying the city plans to ban dogs, when they might want to ban certain breeds.
Evidently, honesty went out the window with the election, as that’s all the cons seem to be able to do now: exaggerate in order to rile the stupid into believing their nonsense.
“Boxlock20″ –
And if your kid doesn’t do his geometry homework and flunks… you blame the teacher.
Evidently, honesty went out the window with the election, as that’s all the cons seem to be able to do now: exaggerate in order to rile the stupid into believing their nonsense.
===========
Really?
Perhaps you should meet Maggotpunk, Capn’A, Monkeyhawk, & KFG.
As part of the effort to end the nation’s financial crisis, the administration will propose boosting the budget deficit by an additional $250 billion this year – to the record $1.75 trillion – enough to support as much as $750 billion more in spending under the government’s rescue program for financial institutions. That would more than double the $700 billion bailout effort passed by Congress last October.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090226/D96JA8J83.html
And all we need to do to finance gov’t is to make sure that the richest pay their fair share. Right? Isn’t that the mantra?
Ooops.
The 2% Illusion
Take everything they earn, and it still won’t be enough.
President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end “tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans,” and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won’t see their taxes increased by “one single dime.”
This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can’t possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama’s new spending ambitions.
Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and “the wealthiest 2%.” Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That’s about 7% of all returns; the data aren’t broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% — about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 — paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
And there’s gonna be a tax cut for 95% of Americans? Please. Not in my lifetime, or yours. Not this side of heaven.
Facts are troubling things, when they get in the way of your favorite ideology.
But I guess it doesn’t matter if there’s any reality to one’s promises, as long as you can bribe – er, convince – enough suckers – er, ‘voters.’
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted February 26, 2009 at 9:07 am | Permalink
“Boxlock20? –
And if your kid doesn’t do his geometry homework and flunks… you blame the teacher.
__________________________________________
heheheh
And if straight folks mess up marriage and spike the divorce rate, they blame “teh gays”….
“to the record $1.75 trillion – enough to support as much as $750 billion more in spending under the government’s rescue program for financial institutions. That would more than double the $700 billion bailout effort passed by Congress last October.”
The people of this country have about $5 trillion in insured deposits. Add this to who knows how many trillions exceed the now $250,000 limit and you can see what is at stake here. What we are talking about if we don’t act is wiping out the cash savings of everyone in America and leaving everyone is absolute poverty who isn’t sitting on a vault full of gold or diamonds, which I suspect would be worthless also.
#
ANTI
Posted February 26, 2009 at 9:07 am | Permalink
Evidently, honesty went out the window with the election, as that’s all the cons seem to be able to do now: exaggerate in order to rile the stupid into believing their nonsense.
===========
Really?
Perhaps you should meet Maggotpunk, Capn’A, Monkeyhawk, & KFG.
============================================
Having a problem staying on subject? And you want assault weapons? Hmmmm…..
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting the tax hike (antithesis of tax cut) for the rich is going to fund the budget, merely an offset. Going to have to find another straw man to go after.
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting the tax hike (antithesis of tax cut) for the rich is going to fund the budget, merely an offset. Going to have to find another straw man to go after.
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting the tax hike (antithesis of tax cut) for the rich is going to fund the budget, merely an offset. Going to have to find another straw man to go after.
JMWalker, Mary:
You don’t REALLY think the left intends to stop at the arbitrary and imaginary boogieman of “assault weapons” (i.e. eeeeeeeevil black rifles) do you?
Do you also believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny? They do, or at least its equivalent; they actually believe in magic. They believe that a firearm, apparantly especially an eeeeeeevil black rifle, somehow magically kills by itself, or magically transforms an otherwise lawful person into a raving killer.
It’s like talisman or totem magic; the idea that an item brings with it magical properties. They’re hoplophobes; reality and facts have nothing to do with this disease. Neither does a Constitution, I’m afraid. For it’s quite likely that an “assault weapon ban” may be unconsititutional.
“Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.” DC v. Heller at 57.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
The AR15, certainly the rifle perhaps most in the sights of the hoplophobes, is the most common target rifle in the nation.
No. Not one more “reasonable regulation.” (BTW: my definition of reasonable regulation is that citizens ought to be able to own anything the police in your jurisdiction have). Not one more “for the children,” or “if it saves just one life,” or any other pointless inanities. No more.
For when this ban fails to do what its proponents claim (and it will, just as the last round of this ban did) those same proponents will be back with another round of “reasonable regulations.” I know it. They know it; that’s the whole point.
I’m with Pleefer on this one. Molon Labe.
And Anti, per your 9:07: No sh**, and amen.
From BoxCock’s softporn site. I also recommend the Romanian gymnist.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b4_1235488269
Thanx Box.
LOL!
Come on Walker! Look at your response! No facts, just a few personal anecdotes and personal attacks.
How are we going to have a decent discussion if you can’t participate in an adult manner?
There is no requirement for the president of these United States to be vetted by the FBI or any other organization. That’s why it’s so important for our electoral process to be reported on in an honest manner and for the voters to pay attention and educate themselves.
So what that you’ve been investigated for a security clearance. It has nothing to do with the president. Obama hasn’t been vetted. He has never had a security clearance. Never.
OK, one more time and real slow. There is no requirement for the president to have a security clearance. Therefore, your ridiculous one week rant has no meaning.
“There is no requirement for the president to have a security clearance.”
This may be obvious, and I am NOT getting into the “Kenyan birth” crap (and yes, it’s crap), but the fact that he is President IS his security clearance. Get over it, Hank.
#
Maggotpunk
Posted February 26, 2009 at 8:31 am | Permalink
Boy, the Rethugs are desperate if they have to toss in that old debunked story about Obama being born in Kenya. Where’s that Kenyan birth certificate Hank?
_______________________________________
First things first, Maggotpunk. Where’s the Hawaiian birth certificate?
Answer, there isn’t one.
#
GMC70
Posted February 26, 2009 at 9:55 am | Permalink
“There is no requirement for the president to have a security clearance.”
This may be obvious, and I am NOT getting into the “Kenyan birth” crap (and yes, it’s crap), but the fact that he is President IS his security clearance. Get over it, Hank.
_______________________________________
Well, actually, I am ‘over it’ GMC. I realize that the mere fact that he’s been elected president gives him all the clearance that he needs or wants.
Ain’t arguing that point. My point is that trying to say he was obviously born in Hawaii because he’d been ‘vetted’ is not true. He wasn’t vetted. He’s never had a clearance as a result of a background investigation.
Was he born in Kenya? Rather a moot point now, isn’t it?
GMC70
Posted February 26, 2009 at 9:44 am | Permalink
===================
Well said GMC70.
Hank,
And your proof Obama’s never had, no does the president of the United States need, a security clearance?
Hank has shown himself to be incapable of “discussion” by ignoring good evidence that he doesn’t like and clinging to bad evidence that gives him the result he wants.
Can anyone seriously believe that Obama’s grandmother’s word, reported by a CON shill with no motivation to tell the truth, is as good as the official copy of the birth certificate that the state of Hawaii produced?
Hank can.
Can anyone seriously believe that Berg’s lawsuit that was thrown out of court several times and refused more than once by the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court has any merit whatsoever?
Yup. Hank can.
Thus is the CON way of making decisions revealed. Start with the conclusion you want. Embrace any evidence no matter how bad if seems to support your conclusion. Ignore, demean, scoff at any evidence that refutes your conclusion no matter how bad.
Then accuse people who don’t take you seriously of not wanting to engage in good faith “discussion.”
Correction: Ignore, demean, scoff at any evidence that refutes your conclusion no matter how good.
Embrace any evidence no matter how bad if seems to support your conclusion. Ignore, demean, scoff at any evidence that refutes your conclusion no matter how bad.
===================
AGW?
Thanks for your 9:55 post, GMC.
JMWalker is supposed to bring ‘evidence’ that would change the mind of HLP who makes claims without evidence?
Does make one wonder why Obama never made his birth certificate available when requested. No, not on the Web.
When McCain was asked, he immediately supplied all documents about his birth in Panama.
Why couldn’t Obama do the same thing? Why be evasive?
And your proof Obama’s never had, no does the president of the United States need, a security clearance?
_______________________________________
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Your turn, got any proof that trumps the Constitution?
Got any proof that The ‘chosen one’ has ever been in any job or office that required a formal investigation for a security clearance?
Historically, ANTI, there’s a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
That CAN be explained away, but on the other hand, it’s pretty good evidence on its face.
As I said awhile back, Global warming is very complex and there’s a lot of conflicted data and hard-to-interprete data.
But to say there’s no evidence for Global warming is ludicrous.
Perhaps both GMC and anti should read the daily news:
The drug wars in Mexico are killing more people than ever. How does that cross over to the United States in terms of weapons? The drug cartels are being supplied with weapons bought in the United States. The proof is in increased weapons confiscations at border crossing going INTO Mexico, and in the number of weapons, seized by the Mexican army, that have originated in the United States.
That’s one part of the problem. Another part is the police in many cities in this country are outgunned by average citizens who collect assault weapons. Obama also intends to ban cop-killer bullets, which have NO place in this country, other than the military. And I’m nowhere near paranoid enough to think a military takeover is eminent.
I am against banning guns altogether, and think the current laws should be enforced, but I see no reason why some assault weapons, cop killer bullets, and the gun show loophole, shouldn’t be banned, and/or changed.
Regular–
Would you provide a link to McCain’s birth certificate?
Thank you.
Mary_Caruso posted February 26, 2009 at 8:31 am
Hank, deal constructively with your anger. Obama is president and you need to get over it. When you cut and paste from rants by right wing pundits, it isn’t effective, . .
—-
Hank’s copy/pastes effectively prove that he trolls by proxy.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/02/open-thread-226-2/comment-page-2/#comment-527926
Hank’s consistent ‘you’re a nitwit’, ‘I’m smarter/better than you’ attitude, and his non-responses prove that he’s a troll.
But to say there’s no evidence for Global warming is ludicrous.
No, what is ludicrous is that man derived co2 is 0.038 of 1 percent and claiming it has a great impact on climate.
What’s even more ludicrous is to legislate co2, a naturally occurring gas to the point that its only purpose is to increase the tax burden on citizens. The tax increase will do zip to control carbon emissions and levels.
The drug wars in Mexico are killing more people than ever. How does that cross over to the United States in terms of weapons? The drug cartels are being supplied with weapons bought in the United States.
——————–
How is a law going to stop that?
#
CapnAmerica
Posted February 26, 2009 at 10:18 am | Permalink
Regular–
Would you provide a link to McCain’s birth certificate?
Thank you.
——————–
That’s the point Crapn – there is no Web Link.
McCain made the ‘hold-in-your hands’ documents available for the press or anyone who asked for them that had a legitimate interrogatory.
Obama posted his birth documents on the Web. I find that weak and evasive.
McCain’s birth certificate.
clickity click:
http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=1293
Gangs and criminals will always have guns. So why disarm the law abiding citizens?
Regular–
“hold in your hands” documents?
You mean like this?
FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
The cons are a waste of time in discussion. They are marginalized out of Government for now and probably for the rest of their lives if we are careful. Let them rant about where President Obama was born and treat it as you would the writing on a bathroom wall. You’ll never see the idiot that did it and you probably don’t want to. Let’s talk about fixing our country without and in spite of them. THAT will hurt them more than entertaining their juvenile screeds could ever do.
Hey, gun nuts–
Nobody is talking about making any guns illegal that aren’t already illegal.
So just relax.
Worry about the economy that Bush left us, if you must worry about something . . .
CapnAmerica posted February 26, 2009 at 10:16 am
Historically, ANTI, there’s a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
That CAN be explained away, but on the other hand, it’s pretty good evidence on its face.
——————–
The correlation cannot be explained away scientifically. AGW deniers just ignore the science.
The Milankovitch cycles are too weak to cause the past temperature changes — CO2 levels and other factors are needed to explain the observed warming/cooling.
Well liberals?
You sat here saying over and over again that Obama doesn’t want to mess with our guns or won’t waste his time…
Not even through the first couple of months and here he is going after assault weapons just as I predicted.
Liars.
Nobody is talking about making any guns illegal that aren’t already illegal.
==========
Except the President of the United States of America.
Apparently, Hank, you are correct. Kind of a double standard, in my way of thinking. But I apologize. And then again, if all members of congress had to be vetted, we’d have an empty chamber.
But Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution does state: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
So far, Hawaii has shown both a birth certificate and a notice in the paper of his birth. If one is to believe in the Kenya theory, then one must believe in a conspiracy going back over forty years, whose sole intention was in predicting Obama’s nomination for President. As I said in another post, are you sure Hillary ain’t his mom?
#
Nathaniel
Posted February 26, 2009 at 10:32 am | Permalink
Well liberals?
You sat here saying over and over again that Obama doesn’t want to mess with our guns or won’t waste his time…
Not even through the first couple of months and here he is going after assault weapons just as I predicted.
Liars.
===========================================
He’s just re-enacting the ban that was in place until 2004, when Bush dropped it. So just how did that ban hurt your gun collection, Nathan? And of what use are cop-killer rounds to citizens of this country?
CapnAmerica
Posted February 26, 2009 at 10:26 am | Permalink
Regular–
“hold in your hands” documents?
You mean like this?
FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.
======================
FactCheck.org is operated by the Annenberg Group.
The same organization where Obama handed out 60 million/year in failed education reform.
I think you need to pick an unbiased source.
#
HLP
Posted February 26, 2009 at 10:23 am | Permalink
McCain’s birth certificate.
clickity click:
http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=1293
============================================
Well, at least you haven’t lost your sense of humor:-) That was funny!!!
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1990/Lorius_etal.html
“changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing “
So all those born by Caesarian section could not be president? What the hell does “natural born” mean anyway?
jmwalker says-
“of what use are cop-killer rounds to citizens of this country”
And can JM define “cop-killer rounds”?
Please try JM. It’s just another made up scare tactic of the gun banners. And an old one at that.
Please try anyway.
Mexico’s drug gangs import our assault rifles.
Phantom
Posted February 26, 2009 at 10:53 am | Permalink
Mexico’s drug gangs import our assault rifles.
==================
They are breaking the law, do you think they will respond kindly to a new one?
Cop killer rounds are those capable of penetrating cop body armor. Just about any round in any rifle with sufficient power would do it. I would suspect rounds composed of spent uranium fuel rods would do it, or fully jacketed rounds, too. Anyway, I’ve got no problem with people with sufficient training and without troublesome backgrounds to possess any of it. Just as long as they can’t have pot. That’s what is important.
The registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate. The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.
Apparently, people line Leo Donofrio, Dr. Orly Taitz, and Corsi have more standing than Hawaiian officials among cons.
Wasn’t there something about the Supreme Court getting involved? How’d that turn out?
It’s over. Get over it. Worry about your assault weapons.
#
Heckler
Posted February 26, 2009 at 10:52 am | Permalink
jmwalker says-
“of what use are cop-killer rounds to citizens of this country”
And can JM define “cop-killer rounds”?
Please try JM. It’s just another made up scare tactic of the gun banners. And an old one at that.
Please try anyway.
========================================
What I referred to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon_coated_bullet
#
ANTI
Posted February 26, 2009 at 10:56 am | Permalink
Phantom
Posted February 26, 2009 at 10:53 am | Permalink
Mexico’s drug gangs import our assault rifles.
==================
They are breaking the law, do you think they will respond kindly to a new one?
========================================
Are they? They’re breaking Mexican laws by bringing them across the border, but if they can buy them legally in this country, what laws are they breaking?
#
beber
Posted February 26, 2009 at 10:39 am | Permalink
So all those born by Caesarian section could not be president? What the hell does “natural born” mean anyway?
============================================
No Republican parents:-)
JM –
To be blunt: bull****
First – The drug wars in Mexico
Riiiight. This is the new talking point. Mexico’s problems are just a new justification for an old goal, and a poor one at that. One would not need to come to the US and buy guns at gun shows or stores at premium retail prices, the guns of choice (the AK47)are available for cheap on the black market. And since when are constitutional rights conditioned on another nation’s failure to exercise it’s domestic control?
Nope. That’s a straw man.
Second – police in many cities in this country are outgunned by average citizens who collect assault weapons.
Bull***. Police routinely HAVE assault weapons, fully automatic ones, the real thing, not what the Dems in Congress disingenuously call “assault weapons.” They get them cheap, as surplus from the military. Little old Butler County has ‘em, I’ve fire ‘em (and fun it is, too!). Google is your friend, JM; see how often “assault weapons” are the weapons of crime. It’s ludicrously small. No, “assault weapons” are chosen as the target because they are easily demonized for those who accept these inane statements at face value.
And those who “collect” assault weapons buy them legally, with background checks, and are a threat to no one. The criminal, who wishes to use such a weapon for crime, will submit to no background check. When will you people figure it out – only the law abiding abide by gun control laws. That’s why the criminals are called criminals. That’s also why the “gunbuster” on doors is so ridiculous. The only persons such laws restrict are those who are no threat in the first place.
Third – Obama also intends to ban cop-killer bullets
Riiiight. Sigh. Google, again, is your friend. There is no such thing as a “cop-killer” bullet. There never was. The eeeeeevil Black Talon round was plastic coated to reduce wear inside gun barrels; the plastic would never survive firing and flight and had no effect in going through bulletproof vests (which of course are not in fact fully bulletproof). I’ve fired ‘em. There’s no difference. Most vests are effective against most handgun rounds, even the eeeeeevil Black Talons, but they will not stop most higher velocity rifle rounds, and never could (absent a SAPI plate – if I spelled that right). The “cop-killer bullet” is a myth. Invented to dupe fools. Always was.
I own a number of guns fully capable of piercing nearly any bulletproof vests. If you have a deer rifle, so do you. If this passes, how long do you think it will be before the come after those, claiming they are “cop killing sniper rifles.”
Who are you kidding? Only yourself.
Fourth – the “gun show loophole.”
Another myth. There is no special rule, or lack of rule, that applies at gun shows. Dealers who sell there have to do background checks, just like in their stores. What this really refers to is private sales, which sometimes take place at, and (far more often) away from, gun shows. Banning private sales (without background checks) might be a point which is debatable, but it is absolutely unenforceable, even if you wanted to do it.
Do you next trot out the Tiahrt amendment standard line? It’s another lie.
I am against banning guns altogether. Great. But the folks you enable in this legislation are all for it. And this is just an incrimental step toward that goal. If you think otherwise, you’re a fool.
Nobody is talking about making any guns illegal that aren’t already illegal. – Capn
That makes you either a liar or a fool. Pick your poison.
JM says-
“What I referred to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon_coated_bullet”
And where can you buy those JM? Don’t know? YOU CANT BECAUSE NO ONE MANUFACTURES THEM!!
Go ahead and ban those. You need to go on a diet. You’ve swallowed so many of the gun banners lies you have to weigh, what, 400lbs?
BlueJay sings….
Aint that a kick in the head…
Well, JMWalker, I accept your apology and offer one of my own.
I apologize.
I really don’t think it matters much where Obama was born. When you read the Constitution and try to determine what the founding fathers intended for the qualifications for president are it can leave you wanting.
“Natural born citizen’, not to specific on what that means. Every reasonable person accepts the notion that McCain is ‘natural born’ even though there is no doubt he was born in Panama. Anyone that tries to defend Obama because McCain doesn’t show his birth certificate is either ignorant or intentionally missing the point. He was born. No question where.
Obama? His birth certificate is important only because there is some question where. I don’t really care where he was born. His mother was an American citizen, he was raised as an American (for the most part) and he’s now the president. As far as I’m concerned even if he was born in Kenya his circumstances meet the intent of the founding fathers.
What I find amusing is his defense of the lawsuits. Mary and others accuse me of being angry. If I defend the accusations I give them credence. Mary has never seen me angry. In fact, she’s really quite fond of me! No one on the BLOG has ever seen me angry. Well, maybe the boy has but I bet he’d have to think on it a while to remember when!
So, the very fact the ‘chosen one’ has spent so much effort not to prove he was born in Hawaii but to insure that he didn’t have to prove he was born in Hawaii is quite telling to me!
So . . . I apologize. I believe you come to the BLOG with honesty and good intentions. Sorry if I have implied otherwise.
I used to never think about guns. I had no thoughts of whether the types of guns one could own should be regulated, or whether gun owners should be registered — just didn’t think about guns or their owners.
Until I began reading here at WEBlog.
The more posts I read from gun lovers, the more I think about guns and their owners, and the more I am in favor of very strict gun control regulations!
“. Dealers who sell there have to do background checks, just like in their stores. What this really refers to is private sales, which sometimes take place at, and (far more often) away from, gun shows. ”
I can vouch for this. I bought my “black gun” last month at a packed gun show. They ran a background check just like at a regular gun dealer.
Althought I do believe the form they make you fill out is a complete waste of time.
Are you a felon – been convicted?
Are you seeing a shrink?
Are you under a court order?
etc., etc., etc.,
Now I ask you: If you are a crook, insane, or under a court order – are you going to check the YES block if you want a gun?
All this form does is punish good citizens who fill it out correctly as I did. The crooks will get their guns elsewhere!
“The more posts I read from gun lovers, the more I think about guns and their owners”
That’s why we have a Constitutional Amendment which precludes admittedly uniformed, yet bias, people like you from making such big decisions.
And another way of looking at it is if the gun owners who post here were more rational posters I would still not ever be thinking about guns or gun owners.
“The more posts I read from gun lovers, the more I think about guns and their owners, and the more I am in favor of very strict gun control regulations!”
Yeah that’s where I’m at too. Some of the people that post here who are allowed to conceal carry shouldn’t even be walking around loose in polite society let alone carrying a gun.
Since reading here at WEBlog, I have been astonished that so many are willing to give up their freedoms.
I agree completely with that statement, ANTI!
I am in favor of very strict gun control regulations!-Linda
——————–
ANTI
Posted February 26, 2009 at 11:30 am | Permalink
Since reading here at WEBlog, I have been astonished that so many are willing to give up their freedoms.
—————————
lindainks55
Posted February 26, 2009 at 11:32 am | Permalink
I agree completely with that statement, ANTI!
====================
Are you freaking kidding me?
Heckler
Posted February 26, 2009 at 11:13 am | Permalink
JM says-
“What I referred to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon_coated_bullet”
And where can you buy those JM? Don’t know? YOU CANT BECAUSE NO ONE MANUFACTURES THEM!!
_____________________________________________
Just because they’re not manufactured anymore doesn’t mean they’re not available.
I assure you that they can still be found.
U.S. Is Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartels
I loved this story about how we provide easy access to guns for the Mexican drug gangs… Like arming the Taliban…..
“The guns helped fuel the gang warfare in which more than 6,000 Mexicans died last year.”
Yeah, yeah, laws were broken. Yeah yeah, 6,000 dead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26borders.html?_r=1&hp
Of course, duh Libs appear to have no problems with terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hesbollah carrying around ‘rpg’s’, ‘mortar and rocket launchers’ to attack their neighbors.
Having someone in the U.S. owning a firearm – tsk tsk.
“Since reading here at WEBlog, I have been astonished that so many are willing to give up their freedoms.”
Amen.
XXX
To my knowledge they’ve NEVER been manufactured,except perhaps in someones garage. And if you think those are what Obama/Holder are talking about you are incredibly naive.
DavidB
Posted February 26, 2009 at 11:37 am | Permalink
U.S. Is Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartels
I loved this story about how we provide easy access to guns for the Mexican drug gangs… Like arming the Taliban…..
“The guns helped fuel the gang warfare in which more than 6,000 Mexicans died last year.”
Yeah, yeah, laws were broken. Yeah yeah, 6,000 dead.
============================
I doubt if Mexican Drug Gangs walk into your local U.S. of A gun store and purchase weapons.
ANTI,
I am probably not explaining well, and probably won’t ever find words that are good enough to make myself clear.
I never thought about guns or gun owners — ever. Didn’t want to own one personally but never gave a thought to someone / anyone wanting to own them all. I grew up around guns. My brother still has the beautiful gun case full of our Dad’s guns.
Until I read here.
And, some of the posts from those who seem to me obsessed with guns made me think about this subject. Because I know a gun doesn’t become dangerous until it’s in someone’s hand, or at least nudged or messed with.
I would love not to think about this subject. I would like to go back to thinking the only illogical, dangerous people in possession of guns are the crooks, criminals who care nothing about themselves, society or laws.
But, those days are gone.
DavidB says-
“U.S. Is Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartels”
You know, if Obama made border security a priority wouldnt that fix the problem?
….speaking of which, “isnt the border fence a ’shovel ready’ project?”
Who does Obama think he is closing offshore loopholes for companies, taxing hedge funds like they were just any other business, going after offshore accounts like UBS. This guy won’t last long.
linda
You are mistaking obsession for passion. And as a general rule the ones passionate about guns are also passionate about the constitution(ALL of the Constitution) and liberty.
The ones who don’t like guns? They tend to be the ones who just want their daily allotment of grass to eat.
Accepted, Hank. Never wanted to get into that kind of thing in the first place. I would rather cooler heads prevail.
Still hate your politics, though:-)
Yeah right linda…
Like talking on the blog has all of a sudden made you decide to support gun control?
Please. You were anti-gun far before I ever made any stupid comments.
You’re probably right about the obsession / passion thing, Heckler. Most of us (myself definitely included!) aren’t wordsmiths who are talented enough to put our exact thoughts into our posts.
Of course, I would have to take exception with your last sentence, because it’s not accurate. There are those who simply don’t like guns and still are thinkers, are lovers of liberty, who respect and uphold our Constitution, who are ever bit as loyal and steadfast an American as those who do like guns.
I personally don’t like the way guns smell. And they make my hands dirty. I’ve fired guns and didn’t like that either. Found no satisfaction in being able to hit that target or that thrown clay pigeon. Isn’t my bag.
I also don’t enjoy playing golf, but I love the fact that my hubby does! Do you know how long it takes to play a round of golf? Count in the coffee before and the beer afterward and shoot I have around five hours all to myself! ;-)
US government drug policy has alot more to do with drug cartel violence in mexico than than Gun policy. End the war on drugs and you’ll end drug cartels
After that “speech” I guess Jindal is no longer the front runner for the Republican nominee for president in 2012! Seems they all sound like Bush or Palin.
I personally don’t like the way guns smell. And they make my hands dirty. I’ve fired guns and didn’t like that either. Found no satisfaction in being able to hit that target or that thrown clay pigeon. Isn’t my bag.
================
Fine.
Just don’t trample MY RIGHTS!
GMC70
Posted February 26, 2009 at 11:08 am |
First – The drug wars in Mexico
Riiiight. This is the new talking point. Mexico’s problems are just a new justification for an old goal, and a poor one at that. One would not need to come to the US and buy guns at gun shows or stores at premium retail prices, the guns of choice (the AK47)are available for cheap on the black market. And since when are constitutional rights conditioned on another nation’s failure to exercise it’s domestic control?
=======================================
But they ARE buying assault weapons in this country and shipping them to Mexico. That is an undeniable fact. Price doesn’t concern them, power does. And ask yourself this: Why are there border drug wars? Could it be because WE are buying up the illegal drugs being sold by Mexican cartels?
So that kind of puts us on a one way street: We buy the drugs being sold, and we supply the weapons being used by cartels to control that same drug trade. http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/International/story?id=1477964
Apparently, posting two links is a bad thing:
This isn’t a joke. The war has crossed the border into this country. http://www.kpho.com/news/18798432/detail.html#-
It WILL get worse, and for the few who think banning assault weapons will mean they can no longer own certain weapons, IMHO, I could really care less. With the drug war spilling over into this country, the good of the many outweigh the wants of the few.
JMWalker
Posted February 26, 2009 at 11:59 am | Permalink
Apparently, posting two links is a bad thing:
This isn’t a joke. The war has crossed the border into this country. http://www.kpho.com/news/18798432/detail.html#-
It WILL get worse, and for the few who think banning assault weapons will mean they can no longer own certain weapons, IMHO, I could really care less. With the drug war spilling over into this country, the good of the many outweigh the wants of the few.
———————–
How is disarming our citizens protecting us?
I think after Jindal’s speech Joe the plumber is rising in prominence. Heard his name mentioned in the same breath as jindal, mccain and palin. Joe’ll be the clear front runner in 2012, he’s even more articulate than jindal, and is every man’s man!
The second amendment allows us to form a well armed militia and bear arm. This was a time before we had a standing militray, local police, state police, FBI etc and a citizen militia was the only way our country could then protect itself. To argue the constitution “guarentees” you the right to bear arms isn’t 100% correct.I, for one, don’t think it’s necessary for the average citizen to know own an arsenal of weapons. Why do you have to own a semi-automatic assult rifle? But that’s MY feeling. HOWEVER, the supreme court, you know those activist judges, have interpeted the constitution in other ways and I fine with that. you see, in America, I can disagree because I have that right also.
Legalize the drugs and it all evaporates. The money, the guns, the cartels. They’ll have to turn to running the other type of artifically priced drugs, those the medical establishment has a monopoly on.
. . . the perceived good of the many outweigh the wants of the few.
Fixed it for you.
And your perception is wrong; a case can be made that Mexico’s stringent gun laws make this kind of lawlessness more likely, not less. And as Anti points out, how does citizen disarmament here serve to help the Mexicans?
Wanna crack down on gun smuggling south (already illegal, BTW)? Great. I’m all for it. Just don’t pretend this is all about helping the Mexicans regain control. It isn’t. This is the same old claptrap wrapped up in new justification.
#
Hud
Posted February 26, 2009 at 11:39 am | Permalink
“Since reading here at WEBlog, I have been astonished that so many are willing to give up their freedoms.”
Amen.
__________________
They’re just repeating the liberal talking points.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385×266867
Watch someone makeup a new nic pretending to be a hard core redneck promoting gun rights. (see last night’s open thread about the Muslim connection).
The nic “biased1″ is a dead giveaway.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/26/america/border.php
The Mexican agents who moved in on a safe house full of drug dealers last May were not prepared for the firepower that greeted them.
When the shooting was over, eight agents were dead. Among the guns the police recovered was an assault rifle traced back across the border to a dingy store here called X-Caliber Guns.
Now, the owner, George Iknadosian, will go on trial on charges that he sold scores of weapons, mostly AK-47 rifles, to smugglers who supplied a drug cartel in the western state of Sinaloa, fueling the gang warfare in which more than 6,000 Mexicans died last year.
The Mexican authorities have long complained that American gun dealers were arming the cartels. This case is the most prominent prosecution of an American gun dealer since the United States promised Mexico two years ago that it would clamp down on the smuggling of weapons across the border.
If the laws were really enforced, no gun dealer would ever dare sell an assault weapon, or a high capacity hand gun.
Wow GMC,
I am telling ya, these posts over the course of the last week or so have impressed the heck out of me.
But I must say that if this so-called drug war was ended. 80% of the problem with the cartels would end. And yeah, just like any other criminal, they’ll find something to steal and sell again, be it people or whatever.
The “reasonable” gun restrictions that are being brought forth does nothing but disarm the slaves.
To argue the constitution “guarentees” you the right to bear arms isn’t 100% correct.
Shaved – do you understand the words “shall not be infringed” differently? Note that in the Heller decision NOT A SINGLE JUSTICE adopted the collective rights model. ALL NINE found that the 2nd amendment protected an individual right, at least at some level.
No, to argue that the 2nd amendment isn’t what it is is equivalent to arguing that the sky isn’t blue. It simply can’t be taken seriously.
Legalize the drugs…
Are there really that many weak-willed people in the U.S. that they can’t live their lives without drugs other than medical use?
Sorry, the real drug dealers and serious arms dealers are employed by the CIA.
http://www.powderburns.org/
Neither an “assault weapon,” as the media defines it, nor a “high capacity magazine” is illegal, beber.
At least unless the citizen disarmament crowd has its way. And if that’s the case, you can bet your ass it won’t be the last “reasonable restriction” they will ask for.
Pleefer –
Just when I’m about to say thank you, you dive off into conspiracy nuttiiness again. Per your 12:20.
Oh well.
I just swatted my first fly of the season! Springtime in Kansas is definitely on the way.
GMC70,
The phrase you quoted refers , again, to the formation of a militia. That part of the amendment really isn’t necessary anymore (forming a militia) and judges have deemed each case brought before it dealing with the ownership of guns to appely and I AGREE even though I don’t think we need private ownership. We disagree on that point. I would NEVER go for a law that in any way altered the constitution.
By the way the sky is blue because that’s the color that’s reflected away, it’s actually made of all the other colors except blue. :-)
Yes, but sold to someone who later commits a crime or exports it, it becomes a crime to sell both. Otherwise, why are the prosecuting Iknadosian? That’s the way to shut you fuuuuuucks down. The dealers are already criminally responsible in some instances if the guns end up in the wrong place. As you say. Just enforce the laws we have, and you’re toast.
#
ANTI
Posted February 26, 2009 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
JMWalker
Posted February 26, 2009 at 11:59 am | Permalink
How is disarming our citizens protecting us?
============================================
Who said anything about disarming us? There is talk of REINSTATING the 1994 ban that was dropped in 2004. That sure didn’t seem to hurt anybody when it was in effect.
And by making certain weapons illegal, it makes it more difficult for the cartels to buy them in the states, with the understanding the laws are enforced, which most aren’t now. So maybe a combination of enforcement and certain weapons bans, we could at least control some of what’s going on at our borders. Hey, we can either stop using illegal drugs or legalize them…take your pick.
There is also the fact we lead the world in gun deaths. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
That in itself is scary. Does that not bother you, or does that reinforce your need for more weapons?
I am in no way calling for the ban of all guns, as anti posted:
ANTI
Posted February 26, 2009 at 8:12 am | Permalink
Obama will BAN guns!
I do, however, think common sense should prevail, and certain assault weapons, determined by reasonable people, and I include those who know weapons, should be banned. If you need more than a couple of rounds to pop a deer, you got no reason to be hunting. Either that, or A) your a really bad shot, B) you never sighted your weapon in, or C) your shooting at cows:-)
Are the Republican liars still pointing out the absurdity that a Democratic President will ban guns? Didn’t happen with Clinton, won’t happen with Obama. The Supreme Court has already decided the issue and the President can’t override the Supreme Court.
But why should facts get in the way of another Republican lie?
The gun manufacturers have sold their products well. More and more often now, when these gun nuts get in arguments with their preteens, the kid goes and gets the family equalizer and blows the offending parent to kingdom come and goes to jail. Sounds like a self-correcting problem to me!
Obama, or any other President just simple ban guns dispite what Nixon believe (If the President does it, it isn’t illegal). A president or law maker can petition that certain weapons be banned. Who needs an anti-armour assault weapon to kill a turkey?
“…shall not be infringed.”
I’ll re-post my argument for guns in prisons if you like.
HLP posted: “So, was our Commander-in-Chief born in Kenya? Probably. But his real daddy was probably Frank Marshall Davis.”
HLP needs some HELP in understanding probability. There is no evidence that Davis is Obama’s father. The Hawaii State Certificate of Birth is considered proof of citizenship by the United States Department of State. Case closed.
Las Vegas could certainly use more visitors with HLP’s understanding of probability.
Shaver,
“Who needs an anti-armour assault weapon to kill a turkey?”
Someone who likes to hunt but doesn’t like to eat turkey.
JMWalker,
So I suppose you fully supported and agreed with the alleged “torture” of prisoners at Gitmo?
The alleged “warrantless” wiretaps?
All in the name of protecting the majority at the expense of the rights of a few? Correct?
Just how much farther are you willing to take that absurd line of reasoning?
Mccain wasn’t “born” in the states either. If your parent(s) is/are American so are you regardless of your place of birth.
Mccain wasn’t “born” in the states either. If your parent(s) is/are American so are you regardless of your place of birth.
Maggotpunk,
In case you missed it, Clinton did ban many types of guns.
It was called the assault weapons ban passed in 1994.
Try looking it up.
Not only that, but several states since then have gone farther in banning even more guns.
Monkeyhawk
Posted February 26, 2009 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
“…shall not be infringed.”
I’ll re-post my argument for guns in prisons if you like.
—
Go ahead. It just reinforces the reality that you cannot be taken seriously.
GMC70,
It actually makes sense. That is what liberals have been doing for the past 50 years. Fighting to give prisoners every right under the sun. I would be surprised if MonkeyBrains wasn’t serious.
bftrgte4fdrtr4rrdrtefikghydguysurydfuhsaugrehwgyreuwtugeuhyeewrhegywegegwgegyetgwavgsegqtfery7wergrygeygegugasyuswgrweggrysguyegqgewghegewhhqgr4gtugegyue4rgy3 uye7cuy37 yy7segy ysy yysdy yg tw tw6wy tgat g2etj tfrrqwrd tfst ftsdf ftwdftrrf txrrt6 gyeugfyt gysgfty yydg7ytv y7u gyd7uh7 huy yu4yvu uhuryu7ehyu bi8uruty7ryu uru uyry hjfhe4yygre ir ireiej iugfi iudijb ifj iei ojiri ifjik k h/ yg/.wytcxt6 tfqdfrtafrqrdzx yaqftq
JM –
I also think common sense should prevail. What you propose, however, is not common sense. To think that more laws will stop what is already illegal is not common sense. To think that the gun-banners only want “reasonable restrictions,” given their history and stated goals, is not common sense.
It is you, my friend, who is common sense challenged.
Molon Labe.
SDHHUYG HYUZgT NDYS Y7E HSYG YSGH YWG YGSD6 HGQGFR YGYQWGYT GTDRVTYF GYWQVT TSGYAHURT FTASFRT6S TRAWFG Fr fhdgf tfdstfywget twreby yery yeydgyuh hsb hbysbn hbjshu
hgxedt bvtft gftft czsew
I did look it up:
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in a 2004 non-peer reviewed report entitled On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act.[10] The report looked at 1.4 million guns involved in crime and determined that “since the law’s enactment … assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime — a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate” and that the Act prevented 60,000 assault weapon crimes over its 10-year period.” Based on this statement a 66% drop would only correlate to slightly greater than 3% change in the rate of gun violence given a 1.61% rate of gun violence post-ban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Phantom,
truer words have never been spoken.
Preventing 6,000 assault weapons crimes a year… hardly worth the trouble WHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
JMWalker writes: I do, however, think common sense should prevail, and certain assault weapons, determined by reasonable people, and I include those who know weapons, should be banned. If you need more than a couple of rounds to pop a deer, you got no reason to be hunting.
Just so we’re perfectly clear, JM: The 2nd amendmment has nothing to do with hunting. It never did.
And notice the language used: “determined by ‘reasonable people.’” Thus setting out the criteria from the start, of course. ‘Unless you agree with me, well, you’re just not reasonable.’
Riiiiiight.
Molon Labe.
Wikipedia is not a valid sourse because anyone can go in and “modify” entries
GMC70,
How does the slow response of governmental policy refute the scientific methodology of climate science?
GMC70 posted February 25, 2009 at 9:07 am
And I’ll believe it’s a crisis when those who say it’s a crisis begin to act like it:
DavidB
Now look it up with someone other than the Brady Bunch. They are proven liars.
#
Nathaniel
Posted February 26, 2009 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
JMWalker,
So I suppose you fully supported and agreed with the alleged “torture” of prisoners at Gitmo?
The alleged “warrantless” wiretaps?
All in the name of protecting the majority at the expense of the rights of a few? Correct?
Just how much farther are you willing to take that absurd line of reasoning?
==========================================
Where have I even posted on any of the above?
From your peculiar way of using logic:
So I suppose you fully support the killing of anybody who doesn’t fully believe in the Bible.
I suppose you fully believe anyone not believing in Christ should be tattooed on their foreheads as unbelievers.
Makes as much sense as what you are saying I should believe in.
Get real, Nathan.
There is no global warming, but Obama is going to sell carbon credits. Same old greenie crap, take from someone else and give to the so-called poor and middle class. I don’t want any part of this, but what choice do I have in this Greenhouse gas crazy mess. Maybe he can make our very own Kathy in charge of doling out carbon credits.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.2b04b3e135c9639d2bbf7a45f32c5bad.201&show_article=1
Maybe “they” should leave guns alone and ban triggers. Maybe then this seemingly daily rant/rave would go away!
george,
There is global warming. Whether it is natural or man made is really what’s up for debate. the earth goes through cycles, some longer/shorter than others. Since there is no “written” record of how long these past period actually were, we can only go by what the natural world has told us from the records it keeps. Aweek of 70 degree weather in kansas does not prove global warming anymore than those days followed by a snow storm disprove it. It’s a pattern over time and the eath IS warming.
Better yet, ban the bullets.
And notice the language used: “determined by ‘reasonable people.’” Thus setting out the criteria from the start, of course. ‘Unless you agree with me, well, you’re just not reasonable.’
==========================================
You failed to include, ” and I include those who know weapons.” You also failed to include, “So maybe a combination of enforcement and certain weapons bans, we could at least control some of what’s going on at our borders.”
As most gun laws now on the books are not enforced, it would make sense to enforce them, wouldn’t it? That might take the gun bans out of the hands of those that are demanding them. The fact they are not enforced says more about the gun lobby than all the bans put together. If the motto, Molon Labe, is your talking point, then even enforcing the gun laws on the books becomes a problem.
If you are denying gun laws should be enforced, and from your posts, you are suggesting that (Molon Labe), then how can we bring down gun deaths in this country, or are 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people just another cost of freedom?
Pelosi our rich witch wants Them raised taxes now and would have done it faster if she could. She also wants your dollars for more health care. Some ask for health care reform which is increases. I wish some of the dems and libs on this blog, would answer this question. At what point is the taxes you pay in total too high. Consider local, county , state and the feds. Is it 50%,60%,70%, or 99%?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19369.html
JMWalker,
Perhaps you should take a basic course in logic. It might help you to actually understand it some.
Heckler
Posted February 26, 2009 at 11:40 am | Permalink
XXX
To my knowledge they’ve NEVER been manufactured,except perhaps in someones garage. And if you think those are what Obama/Holder are talking about you are incredibly naive.
___________________________________________________
Heckler, all I said is that teflon coated bullets can still be had. How did you jump to calling me naive?
shavedclean,
Also, natural factors alone do not explain the recent observed warming — but natural plus human-caused factors do explain it.
Agreed.
This gun thing happens on the other border as well. The newpapers there constantly note that just about all gun crime committed is done with weapons originating the US, mostly the southern states. The murders rate there is very low but it has risen by reason of smuggled guns, much to their alarm and the 2nd ammendment is referred to as the tank top ammendment, where people have the right to bare arms. Similar sized city murders: Chicago vs. Toronto. The former has 800+ muders a year, tha latter 50-70. Detroit vs. Montreal. The former has 300+ per year, the latter 10-20. Yet national long gun ownership rates per household is about the same, but hand guns are much more controlled.
As most gun laws now on the books are not enforced
Really? REALLY? When was the last time you bought a gun from a FFL?
Frankly, the gun laws in this country are plenty onerous now, and as a general rule (at least in my experience) are enforced plenty. Moreover, nothing about Molon Labe suggests that current law not be enforced. Certain of current laws frankly ought to be repealed as unnecessary, duplicitive, ineffective, and uneforcable. But I’ve made no suggestion not to enforce current law.
You do not seek to enforce current law either. You seek citizen disarmament; or at least those for whom you carry the banner do.
It appears, however, that at least some measure of sanity exists in DC, and from an unlikely source:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.
Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it’s clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”
Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
The White House declined to comment on Holder’s remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill’s request for comment.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html
One would hope so. There are plenty of more important issues to deal with than this one, which is so divisive and so pointless.
#
Nathaniel
Posted February 26, 2009 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
JMWalker,
Perhaps you should take a basic course in logic. It might help you to actually understand it some.
==========================================
What, exactly, does my response to your post have to do with my taking logic courses? You’re the one coming to some obscure conclusion based on things I never posted. No wonder your dad still calls you boy. Try posting arguments on what IS posted, not what you THINK someone thinks.
Blehhhh….
Just had a hamburger and fries from Burger King.
Why does everything from fast food has to taste like canola oil these days? Canola oil is nasty tasting.
Didn’t finish it, had soup instead. :)
Guess I’m used to good old fashion ‘animal fat’ tastes.
Actually, JM, while Nathan’s logic is often quite convoluted, on this one he’s got you nailed dead on. You just don’t choose to see it.
Well, Boxlock, I’ve often thought I was gonna die before any of these glacier-slow Dell computers I’m forced to work with actually did something.
#
Regular
Posted February 26, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
Guess I’m used to good old fashion ‘animal fat’ tastes.
There’s a Mexican store on Broadway that sells home made tamales. Can’t remember the name, but made with all the good animal fat ingredients. Buy em by the dozen. Awesome.
#
GMC70
Posted February 26, 2009 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
Actually, JM, while Nathan’s logic is often quite convoluted, on this one he’s got you nailed dead on. You just don’t choose to see it.
=============================================
Really? Please explain.
Monkeyhawk
Posted February 26, 2009 at 1:42 pm | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You asked for it.
And no one has ever refuted it on its merits.
=====
monkeyhawk wrote:
Convicts in Prison have the right to religion. Convict-run prison newspapers are testament to their right to freedom of the press. If charged with a crime, prisoners have the right to face their accusers, to a trial by jury, to their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Convicts in prison cannot be subjected to double jeopardy.
One of the reasons why Americans’ 2nd Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” is endangered is the unconstitutional act of denying incarcerated prisoners their *right to keep and bear arms* in prison!
What’s more, it just makes sense. Just as advocates of Concealed Carry laws have proven that more guns on the street will make criminals have second thoughts about committing crime, those same criminals will be circumspect about committing crimes behind walls if they know every one of them is packing heat. What better way to prevent prisoner rape than to arm the potential rape-ee? Who’s gonna shiv a snitch if his target’s ready to drill him with a .44 Magnum.
Now, you may say something bleeding-heart pinko-liberal like, “What about the guards? Won’t prisoners shoot the guards?” What a f@ggoty-@ssed, un-American *you* turned out to be. Modern prisons are constructed to permit guards from never coming in contact with prisoners. Ever hear of bullet-proof glass? Ever hear of remote-controlled gates and doors? Ever consider that, perhaps, guards themselves might be armed?! (The only reason prison guards aren’t all packing heat is the ill-conceived, *UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!* effort to deny convicts the right bestowed to them by God!
Can’t eat Burger King. Or Hardee’s (are they still in business?) for that matter. Their french fries taste like their burgers and their burgers taste like the bag they come in.
A&W is still pretty good, but the service stinks.
BTW, about the gun thing, everyone knows that those needin’ their fix is gonna get it and no stinkin’ law is gonna stop ‘em (How’s them Havana stogies, Hank?). I seriously doubt that the assault ban previously kept anyone really wanting one from having them. The lifting of the ban caused no more weapons at large–just dropped the price (buy more ammo and cuban cigars?). If ya wanna spin and gyrate ’til ya puke about why you really want assault weapons, fine, just don’t expect me to believe ya. Personally, I find a vacujack to be much cheaper and you don’t get in trouble for using it. Three times today *ducks*
GMC70,
Name one time my logic has been “convoluted”
And thanks for the backhanded compliment…
Hahahahaha GMC,
I always gotta “go there”. But at least we agree on the situation…maybe not how we got here.
But in any case, I am on “your team” and have your back. After all of the insults and goofiness we’ve had, the old saying goes…the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
“Regular
Posted February 26, 2009 at 1:38 pm | Permalink
Blehhhh….
Just had a hamburger and fries from Burger King.
Why does everything from fast food has to taste like canola oil these days? Canola oil is nasty tasting.
…”
I just had a Walt’s burger, fries and a malt.
That is some good eatin.
I may be lethargic all afternoon but dang it was good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E2fAWM6rA
If you watch this YouTube video (1:44), be sure to be patient and watch the second half which makes the first half make sense.
It’s called “Lost Generation,” and was created for the AARP U@50 video contest — placed second in the contest.
“The lifting of the ban caused no more weapons at large–just dropped the price (buy more ammo and cuban cigars?). If ya wanna spin and gyrate ’til ya puke about why you really want assault weapons, fine, just don’t expect me to believe ya. Personally, I find a vacujack to be much cheaper and you don’t get in trouble for using it. Three times today *ducks*”
BoxCock’s sites should be rated for utility.
Just had a panda burger. Fur gets in your teeth.
“shavedclean
Posted February 26, 2009 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
Just had a panda burger. Fur gets in your teeth.”
those fur burgers can get annoying can’t they?
AHHHH, not at all what I was thinking. Need to go drink my puppy shake
“Need to go drink my puppy shake”
not touching that one…
SOS
It took “the one” longer to decide on a dog than it did to decide how to spend a trillion dollars.
just a thought.
Nobody is talking about making any guns illegal that aren’t already illegal. – Capn
That makes you either a liar or a fool. Pick your poison.
******
Howabout simply uninformed?
I try to keep up with the news better than most, and I haven’t heard Obama mention “gun control” once since he was sworn in.
And BTW, even though I’m pretty far left and proud of it, I own guns, I’d like to get more guns, and I don’t support banning any guns that aren’t already banned.
Clinton’s banning of so-called assault weapons was based on nothing but the cosmetics of the rifle.
Utterly meaningless.
“biased1
Posted February 26, 2009 at 2:50 pm | Permalink
It took “the one” longer to decide on a dog than it did to decide how to spend a trillion dollars.
just a thought.”
Huh. I thought Congress was in charge of writing the stimulus plan…
“biased1
Posted February 26, 2009 at 2:50 pm | Permalink”
your bias is showing
“CapnAmerica
Posted February 26, 2009 at 2:55 pm | Permalink
…Clinton’s banning of so-called assault weapons was based on nothing but the cosmetics of the rifle.
Utterly meaningless.”
It was a namby-pamby rule meant to appease soccer moms and tree-huggers.
just like DOMA was nothing more thena wa way to win conservative votes and DADT was nothing more then a way to apease homophobes
Capn –
Point taken; please accept my apology.
Clinton’s banning of so-called assault weapons was based on nothing but the cosmetics of the rifle.
Utterly meaningless.
And on this , it we agree. There are things we fight about (sometimes bitterly), but it seems this issue, at least at this point, isn’t one of them.
Have a good day.
Nathan whines,
“In case you missed it, Clinton did ban many types of guns.”
In case you missed it the claim was that Obama will ban guns, not some guns, but guns, therefore in the entirety.
Besides, if you hadn’t noticed the 1994 law passed with 95 senators voting in favor. If you like Clinton could have vetoed the bill and it would have made no difference. But you are the guy who thinks Lieberman and Sanders are Democrats, and the planet is 6,000 years old. Go back to your sandbox.
And Pleef – I always enjoy the exchange. It’s just politics, it’s not personal.
However, I don’t have “enemies” here. I have persons I tend to agree with, and those I don’t. Sometimes we disagree bitterly. But it’s not personal. These are not enemies.
They are fellow Americans. Even when they disagree with me.
“Lieberman and Sanders are Democrats,”
Lieberman really is a dem, Sanders is a Socialist.
“The Rocky” is folding:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/26/rocky-mountain-news-closes-friday-final-edition/
There go all the memories of my summers with my grandmother. Walking to the Safeway with Grandma to pick up the Rocky was the best way to start a day.
Hope the Post picks up Dusty Saunders, the best darn TV writer left.
GMC70,
Why do you believe that the slow response of governmental policy refutes the scientific methodology of climate science?
#
GMC70
Posted February 26, 2009 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
Actually, JM, while Nathan’s logic is often quite convoluted, on this one he’s got you nailed dead on. You just don’t choose to see it.
====================================
Really? Please explain.
—————————————
I’m still waiting.
Poor Joe the plumber, when he asked his hypotheritcal question there was no way he was ever going to make enough money to worry about obama’s tax hike. Little did he know his stupid question would most likely put him in that bracket. A repub sucker is born every minute.
Actual Headline:
“Grand Jury Finds No Evidence; Dick Death Investigation Over”
Isn’t it “The Perfect Storm” that simultaneously the Mexican drug gangs “have all of the guns” and then they try and take ours away?
LaRaza?
Count them, trying to make everyone a “protected” ward of the state?
How’s that possible with our troops overseas?
Blue Helmets?
Back the 10th Amendment or we’re in trouble and the finishing touches for us to become the 3rd World country that they want will be done.
I’ll just shut up now.
Google (video):
Anchors mortified that Ron Paul was given air time.
An accidental truth-slip.
I understand Ron Paul is one of those in attendance at this week’s CPAC (the high-profile convention for conservative activists) in Washington. The one where they hash out the direction they’ll be taking, who might be in control… Do you think they will address whether libertarians should have a place at the table?
And BTW, even though I’m pretty far left and proud of it, I own guns, I’d like to get more guns, and I don’t support banning any guns that aren’t already banned.
Clinton’s banning of so-called assault weapons was based on nothing but the cosmetics of the rifle.
Utterly meaningless.-Capn’A
———————–
Dammit…(gritting teeth)
I agree.
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) – Gov. Kathleen Sebelius says an energy bill before the House is dead on arrival if it reaches her desk.
Sebelius told reporters Wednesday’ “It’s DOA with me – absolutely.”
The bill would allow two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas
The good Governor went on to say that when she made her original decision, she was looking toward to the future and observed that that future is now here.
Well said!
Linda,
Who knows?
To me, he’s one of the old “Republicans” that somehow the definitions got all out of kilter.
I dunno if anyone knows where they truly “are” in political thought. Which is why I so strongly want to see a third party go major.
Ron Paul, out of any of the rest, offers up the easiest, yet the hardest of solutions.
It’s easiest because it would be a permament fix (which is what the writer’s of the Constitution for America intended) by printing (and coining) money of backed value, interest free.
It would be hardest, yet humbling because we would have to quit trying to build empire and live within our means. And the world would love us for it.
But, because he doesn’t play ball in Washington (he isn’t called “Dr. No” for s&g’s) and because he doesn’t “look” like a leader. He gets no attention.
That’s why I’m here.
I understand, Pleefer.
Guess after this week we’ll have a better idea of what platforms, directions they think is best.
Most of the current leaders are very ’socially’ conservative and haven’t shown an indication that fiscal responsibility is as important as those social issues they champion (many want to legislate morality).
I predict that will continue to be the downfall of the Republican Party and what has brought them to the point of losing the presidency, and the majority in Congress.
Couldn’t agree with you more Linda.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
Hmmm. . .
What’s the matter Hank, afraid Obama will take your manhood away?
Obama needs to play lets make a deal with Mexico.
Mexico you keep your Mexicans from sneaking across our border – we will keep guns from sneaking across yours.
Fair trade.
WTFO? Did anyone tell the democrats the LAST Clinton ban did nothing to lower gun violence.
http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/18755449/detail.html
Why? Because nasty “assault” weapons (those evil “black guns”) aren’t used in most crime involving guns.
And please define an “assualt” weapon.
Tinkerbell wants to talk about ‘manhood’.
Now that is funny, I don’t care who you are.
Hank, Reg, Fleet,GMC,Box, Sol, and other cons: Has anybody checked out HumanE latest letter?
I just heard Beck say that the appropriations bill from last year expenditures had Obama earmarks as a senator and someone’s attempting to expunge his name from it. Biden had several earmarks and on down the line.
I bet most of congress knew very little about what they voted on. No wonder the Reps wouldn’t vote for it, they didn’t have time to digest it as well as 6 Dems. Most dems voted lock step. I’d take what I could get as well in this cut throat environment. That’s staying alive.
We have the Chicago Political machine running the country. It’s an authoritarian one party machine. I wonder what stake the “Old Chicago Mob” has in it. This could get interesting .
During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain fought vigorously over who would be toughest on congressional earmarks.
“We need earmark reform,” Obama said in September during a presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. “And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”
Funny how items show up in spending bills without any notice — like an earmark for a president who promised not to seek any.
President Obama, who took a no-earmark pledge on the campaign trail, is listed as one of dozens of cosponsors of a $7.7 million set-aside in the fiscal 2009 omnibus spending bill passed by the House on Wednesday.
Obama has tried to distance himself from the bill. He didn’t mention it in his address Tuesday and has repeatedly criticized earmarks, local projects that lawmakers insert into such measures without review. This bill contains about 9,000 such earmarks, at a total of about $3.8 billion.
Overall, the president, vice president, the White House chief of staff and the four Cabinet secretaries who were in Congress last year showed up in the records of the House and Senate Appropriations committees as the sponsors or cosponsors of hundreds of millions of dollars in pet projects in the $410 billion spending bill.
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. , who was a senator from Delaware when the window for making 2009 pet project requests was open, has his name attached to $94.9 million in earmarks.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar , who was a senator at the time, sponsored or cosponsored even more in special line items for favored projects. His total, including earmarks he supported as a secondary sponsor, was $227.4 million. The overwhelming majority of those earmarks were cosponsored in conjunction with other lawmakers.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton , Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood , Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel also were members of the last Congress, and each of their names is associated with at least one earmark in this appropriation, which is ready for debate in the Senate
So either:
Obama is a liar
Obama is not president
XXX says-
“Heckler, all I said is that teflon coated bullets can still be had. How did you jump to calling me naive?”
I probably should have addressed that comment to JM. When gun banners talk about banning “cop killer” bullets they are generally talking about banning anything that will penetrate a cops vest. Of course that includes just about all center fire rifle cartridges and a few of the hotter handgun cartridges. Even .22 magnums. The myth of the teflon bullet is often used as fodder to scare people who don’t know better into supporting banning anything that scares them.
Can teflon coated bullets be had or made? Maybe, but why bother if the intent is to penetrate armor. There are much simpler ways. The “cop killer” bullet is just a ploy to scare people.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
“When I am president,” he [Obama] said, “financial institutions will do their part and pay their share, and American taxpayers will never again have to put their money on the line to pay for the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street.”
So either:
Obama is a liar
Obama is not president
#
BlueJay
Posted February 26, 2009 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) – Gov. Kathleen Sebelius says an energy bill before the House is dead on arrival if it reaches her desk.
Sebelius told reporters Wednesday’ “It’s DOA with me – absolutely.”
The bill would allow two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas
The good Governor went on to say that when she made her original decision, she was looking toward to the future and observed that that future is now here.
Well said!
_______________
BJ going ask for free electricity now because the taxes will make it too expensive for him now.
That makes, getting free: childcare, housing, health care, and now energy.
How else could you do your blogging job without it. Too bad you can’t deduct it from your EZ short-form tax return. Is that what you mean by “self employed”?
The issues that Bill Kristol is talking about in his editorial in today’s Washington post.
And the suggested course that the republicans should follow: Obama intends to use his big three issues — energy, health care and education — to transform the role of the federal government as fundamentally as did the New Deal and the Great Society
.
“Conservatives and Republicans will disapprove of this effort. They will oppose it. Can they do so effectively?
Perhaps — if they can find reasons to obstruct and delay. They should do their best not to permit Obama to rush his agenda through this year. They can’t allow Obama to make of 2009 what Franklin Roosevelt made of 1933 or Johnson of 1965. Slow down the policy train. Insist on a real and lengthy debate. Conservatives can’t win politically right now. But they can raise doubts, they can point out other issues that we can’t ignore (especially in national security and foreign policy), they can pick other fights — and they can try in any way possible to break Obama’s momentum. Only if this happens will conservatives be able to get a hearing for their (compelling, in my view) arguments against big-government, liberal-nanny-state social engineering — and for their preferred alternatives“.
My editorial: This puts the Conservatives against education, health care and energy independence.
These are important and needed issues to solve, to stand in the way of has the Conservatives putting political ideology above the country and is as respectable as if they were opposing feeding starving orphans.
I have more respect for what Governor Polenta said earlier today whom fell back on the ridiculousness claim that both Republicans and Democratic are equally guilty of injecting Pork barrel spending. They are no different, so you should support the Republicans! That sounds like you child is going to be molested anyway, so it is better that is it a friend who molest your child then a stranger!
Has anyone else noticed Obama’s Staff is trying to distance Obama from the Bill THIS CONGRESS approved and will require PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SIGNATURE.
The democrats are hiding behind “this is leftover business”, which they believe exonerates them from their principles and promises when they vote NOW to approve earmarks.
Problem is: Most Americans are smarter than that.
#
GMC70
Posted February 26, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
Monkeyhawk
Posted February 26, 2009 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
“…shall not be infringed.”
I’ll re-post my argument for guns in prisons if you like.
—
Go ahead. It just reinforces the reality that you cannot be taken seriously.
____________________
the monkey likes to be extreme because he thinks it’s “sheik”. Kinda like a left handed Phelps.
“Too bad you can’t deduct it from your EZ short-form tax return.”
Too bad the feds ended TELETAX phone filing income tax returns. But, never mind, congress passed the internet cable connection for poor people so I’m sure that we will have 24-7 bloggers dominating the net.
“That makes, getting free: childcare, housing, health care, and now energy.”
News to me that I am getting any of that free.
But granny I understand that you cons are angry and need to lash out. I enjoy your pain even!
A coal plant that Kansans do not want and do not need is NOT going to get built. Why this twists your nipples I can’t imagine. But I’m ever glad to rub salt in it for you!
Anyone notice democrats are quick to throw out the US Constitution.
1. Unfairness Doctrine
2. Gun Ban
3. Washington D.C. representation
4. US Citizenship for President
Am I missing any?
“American_Way
Posted February 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm”
habeus corpus
peaceful demonstration and dissent
right to fair and speedy trial
right to confront your accusors
oops…
I guess it wasn’t Democrats that threw those four out.
w-dog says-
“This puts the Conservatives against education, health care and energy independence.”
No, this puts Conservatives against heavy handed massive government spending as solutions for the problems we face in those areas.
“this puts Conservatives against heavy handed massive government spending as solutions for the problems we face in those areas.”
That’s right Heckler. Democrats are going to have to come up with some more bleeding heart whines about Republicans. These are old complaints.
On the other hand, Republicans are going to have to become bold and clear in proclaiming their position just as you have.
OK stop arguing over banning assault weapons! More important and it causes more deaths and injuries every year. We should ban Chevy pick-ups! Less then one percent of all DUIs are committed in a Chevy Pick-Up.
Banning them will reduce the number of DUIs by the same amount. We need to reduce DUIs and this will do it! (The number of crimes committed using what is referred to as “assault weapons” is less then one percent. So the argument for banning assault weapons makes as much sense as my arguing for banning Chevy Pick-Ups!)
“Heckler
Posted February 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm | Permalink
….
No, this puts Conservatives against heavy handed massive government spending as solutions for the problems we face in those areas.” But.. heavy handed massive government spending as a solution to defense problems is awesome. We love spending massive amounts on the Department of Defense.
Less then one percent of all DUIs are committed in a Chevy Pick-Up.
Everyone knows that all drunks are Ford drivers.
(smirks)
Who made you the official speaker for “Kansans”, boy? Is that part of your commie blogging job?
“So the argument for banning assault weapons makes as much sense as my arguing for banning Chevy Pick-Ups!”
We drive pick up trucks so we don’t litter when we through out our beer cans. That’s also why Chevy pickemup trucks always rust out at the wheelwell.
Beer is corrosive.
BTW, democrats aren’t using that old line about assault weapons being cop killers.
Now, they want to ban them in THIS country, because they are supposedly killing people in ANOTHER (mehico).
But guys that is not what Kristol was talking about. his concern as he was stating was gaining control back from a popular President. Not working to insure that any policies or gain be one of sound fiscal or reasonable influence. I do agree that such things need to be explain in honest and factual manners.
Something that the Conservatives have not seem to be competent to do. In stead of pointing out the relevance of prudent spending they are still shouting out about Marsh Rats and train line that do not exist.
I wish I could remember which Republican Rep it was that was on with Hannity last night. The poor boy had to dance around and sweat to keep from telling Hannity he was being full of crap. Hannity was trying to get the Rep to agree and re-enforce hannity’s made up points. The Rep being aware of the outrage that the official faced when they disagreed with Rush. You don’t want to upset the “base” by disagreeing with a demigod!
The issues of energy, health care and education are not partisan issues it effects the health and well-being of the nation. Kristol was arguing that to allow any meaningful outcomes to these issues would bode well for Obama and the Democratic. As such they should be fought to a stand still and any good outcome be sabotaged. He put an Ideology over the welfare of the country, your country and mine. That is an insult to both of us and to the meaning of the Republican party.
Everyone knows that all drunks are Ford drivers.
Regular how did you know I drive a Ford? FIRST ON RACE DAY!
Darn republicans! Complaining about earmarks – yet Foxnews reports republician earmarks make up 40% of the total.
Still can’t seem to find themselves.
Healthcare is an issue because the media and liberals want it to be.
I have posted many times that 285,000,000 Americans DO have healthcare insurance. Of the 48 million people claim do not – only about 15 million really have no plan available. (and I said cover them)
Further, if you have NO insurance – the hosptials are still required to treat.
There are healthcare insurance needs for maybe 6-10 percent of Americans. You don’t throw out a program which works – to cover a minority. You work the problem from that position.
Healthcare costs outrageous? Certainly. But just how much is your life worth? Nothing is cheap and certainly nothing is free.
“American_Way
Posted February 26, 2009 at 6:00 pm | Permalink
Further, if you have NO insurance – the hosptials are still required to treat.”
True.
So whether it is part of current “the wait until you have something really serious and go into the hospital method” or part of some national health insurance plan taxpayers are paying for the uninsured (i.e. those who are currently uninsured but would be uninsured under a national health insurance plan.)
As a taxpayer who is paying for these people’s heathcare either way, I think it makes more sense to go ahead and make a healthcare plan for them. Looking at the big picture, it will be cheaper for taxpayers to insure the uninsured and offer preventative care versus them waiting until they have to go to the ER.
All of this is engineered, every bit of it. From a bankrupt country to tattle-tale squads enticed by a college education to letting the over 55 crowd go by the way of the casket (in the name of universal healthcare).
State by state. Press your state senator’s to pass SCR No. 1069, MAKE THEM. tell all of your friends in other states to have their leaders introduce affirmation of the 10th Amendment(most states have already introduced it, but those that haven’t…please).
You laughed at Dr. Paul, please don’t allow yourselves to be fooled again and laugh at this proposition. We won’t get another chance. It’s time to actually BE our government, not just submit to it.
The “left” and “right” both, are one in the same to these crooks. They will hold no distinction between the two when the ugliness really comes.
We have to defeat them with the Constitution. The police and military (for the most part) see what is happening but are held to insane policies. Let your Sheriff’s know that they are the most important ally the Constitution has. Let them know that you want them to stand up for it and to be the most important person that local government has.
I wanted to get irate about Bluejay’s words, but I just feel pity for him now.
You laughed at Dr. Paul
—————-
I did and I regret it.
Pleef you got a lotta…heart? but you are fighting in the wrong direction.
Somebody has sold you on the idea that Government is bad.
Guy? Government is us. You and me.
The enemy is big money and big business, not Government. It’s just big money and big business have a lot of pull in Government just now. It’s REPUBLICANS did that. You’re smart enough to know that.
It’s not the 1800’s anymore. Individual liberty is dependent on collective action.
Another group against our Communist President.
NAM follows Chamber of Commerce with a first: Criticizing the Messiah for the first time for his bad policies.
——————
At a time when our country is mired in a severe recession, suffering from rising job losses and a financial system in turmoil, the high taxes and anti-investment provisions proposed in the Administration’s budget plan will stifle our economy’s ability to recover, grow and create jobs. As a strong supporter of the recently-enacted legislation to stimulate economic recovery and growth, we are extremely concerned that the Administration’s proposed budget will take us in exactly the wrong direction.
The benefits of pro-growth tax provisions and those contained in the recently enacted stimulus legislation are dwarfed by major, job-destroying tax increases on thousands of manufacturers of all sizes across all industry sectors.
The NAM supported the temporary stimulus legislation because the targeted government investment and tax relief in the plan will jump start the economy. But it makes no sense to jump start one minute, slam on the brakes the next and then head full-speed into reverse. That’s what today’s budget proposal means for jobs and growth.
Not only would it destroy jobs and impair the recovery, it would further devastate 401k accounts, pensions and other retirement funds.
We are not prepared to give up on our nation’s economic recovery and growth or on the ability of businesses to create quality jobs for American workers. To succeed, though, we need an environment that promotes investment and job creation. The answer is not to impose a massive tax increase on job-creating businesses that will slow down our economic recovery and severely damage the ability of employers to hire new workers.
We recognize that today’s budget blueprint is the first step in a long process. We will continue to review the details of the plan in the coming days. The manufacturing economy and our 12 million-plus workers and their families have much to lose if the budget plan as released today is enacted into law.
Blue Jay says-
“It’s just big money and big business have a lot of pull in Government just now”
And why is that a smart person might ask?
If the government has a huge impact on how you do business in the form of regulations (that may or may not be needed) you get involved with government. The same way a parent becomes involved in their school board. Is that evil, or corrupt? No, you are protecting your self interest, whether you are a big business concerned with energy or OSHA regs. or a parent concerned about testing standards.
Barry’O hasnt spent a day of his life in the private sector working in let alone managing a business. And you think he can do a better job of running things than someone who’s made it their life? Or Barney Frank? Or Dick Durbin? Get real.
Salt Lake Tribune:
Washington » Utah congressmen are taking issue with the Obama administration’s call for a new assault-weapons ban, saying it interferes with the public’s right to bear arms and won’t reduce crime.
The ban expired in 2004 after being in place for 10 years. In a news conference Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder said: “As President [Barack] Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.”
Holder believes the ban would help curb the flow of guns into Mexico, which is seeing increased drug-cartel-related violence.
Utah Reps. Jim Matheson, a Democrat, and Rob Bishop, a Republican, are part of a 10-member task force on gun rights in the House that almost immediately promised to stand in the way of any attempts at a new ban.
“It looks as though with this announcement we’ve been handed our first big fight,” Matheson said.
“I hope this administration doesn’t feel a need to resurrect every bad idea,” Bishop said. “Bringing this useless ban back is a terrible idea, and we will vigorously oppose it with bipartisan backing.”
Not sure how accurate this is. It’s a post supposedly about what Clinton banned:
Here’s what’s banned:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding stock
pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine
donndublin,
Get used to the idea of carbon taxes, because they will be enacted soon.
Also, it’s much cheaper to increase energy efficiency than build new coal-fired plants.
Heckler,
Who worked in the private sector, and had a business with the nick-name, “[you] are busto!” ?
Just what are those scary ASSAULT weapons anyway?
Perhaps the largest area of confusion surrounding this term is the difference between a machine-gun, assault rifle and an assault weapon (non-military definition). A machine-gun is universally recognized as a fully automatic weapon, while the current statutory definitions for assault weapons describe them as semi-automatic. A key concept in defining the military assault rifle is the ability to provide a large volume of fire through fully-automatic or burst fire modes. Every nation that uses the term assault rifle refers to a rifle with said capability. A semi-automatic rifle does not have the capability to lay down large volumes of fire required for modern military assault operations and has not been defined as an assault rifle by any nation. The term assault weapon is more encompassing and fluid than the term assault rifle and leads to confusion that these semi-automatic weapons are fully automatic or would be used by militaries in assault operations. Further, the National Firearms Act of 1934 specifically addresses fully automatic weapons, and the private ownership and usage of them is extremely regulated. To add to the confusion, the media often refers to these semi-automatic rifles as military-style assault weapons.[4] Military assault rifles are also designated under the heading of assault weapon systems by several countries but are capable of full automatic fire creating more confusion.[5]
There is also the perception that firearms that fall under this category can be easily modified for fully automatic fire. This is not the case since the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulations for manufacturers place certain restrictions on firearm product design to comply with the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and the amendments to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 that pertain to machine-gun ownership. These regulations require that semi-automatic firearms sold in the United States be especially difficult to convert to fully automatic operation.
The use of the term assault weapon and its similar appearance to military rifles has led to a misconception that they are more dangerous or powerful than other semi-automatic firearms. In fact, the rifles designated assault weapon are most often small caliber and would be used only for small game such as rabbits or prairie dogs by hunters.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Fear of the unknown creates the hysteria needed to support such a ban.
Those without gun knowledge or experience should seek out responsible gun owners to learn about them and possibly a demonstration.
My goodness… Looks like the All AmWay show today… you hang in there sunshine… You can talk to the walls all you want… not to mention preaching to the choir… Obama will succeed… and then what will be your trash talk??? Hmmmm???
“They further contend that these types of weapons are not frequently used in crime, as evidenced by US Department of Justice statistics. Authors supporting gun rights such as Kenneth W. Royce additionally counter the “rapid rate of fire and spray-fired from the hip” beliefs by stating that rapid rates of fire do not necessarily increase the lethal effects of weapons, but all too often serve only to “convert money into noise” at a more rapid rate. The end result, according to such authors, is that “assault weapons” only pose an apparent threat to public safety through their appearance, and banning them is for purely political reasons, and not for increasing public safety.
“Obama will succeed”
At what? Destroying the constitution will not stop gun ownership. It will not affect crimes committed with the millions of guns already in criminal hands.
Enforce the laws on the books. The last ban was a good ten year test. It changed nothing regarding crime in America.
“NAM SUPPORTS STIMULUS LEGISLATION”
http://www.nam.org/NewsFromtheNAM/NAMSupportsStimulusLegislation.aspx
Obama will succeed… And when he does, then what will be the Screed of the Day from the pathetic detractors??
Chas
Posted February 26, 2009 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
“NAM SUPPORTS STIMULUS LEGISLATION”
======================================
Of course they do, they have their hands out waiting for government cash.
george
Posted February 26, 2009 at 7:00 pm | Permalink
Another group against our Communist President.
NAM follows Chamber of Commerce with a first: Criticizing the Messiah for the first time for his bad policies.
===========================================
Hmmmmm???
This guy from the right thinks talk radio killed conservatism. Well, this guy sounds like a reasonable man, that probably means he won’t be listened to.
——-
How Radio Wrecks the Right
“Did the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs?
They surely did. At the very least, by yoking themselves to the clueless George W. Bush and his free-spending administration, they helped create the great debt bubble that has now burst so spectacularly. The big names, too, were all uncritical of the decade-long (at least) efforts to “build democracy” in no-account nations with politically primitive populations. Sean Hannity called the Iraq War a “massive success,” and in January 2008 deemed the U.S. economy “phenomenal.”
Much as their blind loyalty discredited the Right, perhaps the worst effect of Limbaugh et al. has been their draining away of political energy from what might have been a much more worthwhile project…”
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/23/00006/
Dubya’s Letter To Allen Stanford
http://www.businessinsider.com/dubyas-letter-to-allen-stanford-2009-2
“Barry’O hasnt spent a day of his life in the private sector working in let alone managing a business.”
And that is a GOOD thing. Business is already TOO intrusive into government. A Government does not exist to make a profit. It exists to govern with the consent of the governed and best serve the people.
“If the government has a huge impact on how you do business …”
Not NEARLY big enough an impact to my thinking.
Get business out of government. Get government in to business!
I personally could make some suggestions of what he can do with his summit…
———
“We’ll have a summit of all the women in this audience — or as many of them as we can get into breakout groups — and perhaps devote an hour in an upcoming program to calls only from women who genuinely want to talk to me … But I want some of these women to start telling me what it is I must do to close the gender gap — or, if not, what it is I must do to close the gender gap, what it is I’ve done that has caused the gender gap; assuming the gender gap is true and that the poll is true.
…
I own the men, and what must I do now to own women?”
Rush Limbaugh
http://www.wowowow.com/post/rush-limbaugh-wonders-why-he-cant-get-more-women-220912
Get business out of government. Get government in to business!
========================
OK BJ, What has Gov. done wisely, efficiently, and intelligently?
Besides the Constitution.
The internet that you are using to ask the question for starters.
BlueJay
Posted February 26, 2009 at 9:22 pm | Permalink
The internet that you are using to ask the question for starters
=======================
Really, and? Since you are starting…
#
BlueJay
Posted February 26, 2009 at 9:22 pm | Permalink
The internet that you are using to ask the question for starters.
——————
Do you pay the Gov’ for your internet, BJ?
Do you use a Gov’ browser, BJ?
” I own the men,”
Did fatmouth actually say that?
Clearly, he does NOT “own” the men. He owns those who benefit from his politics and many millions more he lies into THINKING they do.
Do you use a Gov’ computer for that internet/browser/mouse, BJ? Cause I’m F’n curious!
I use a freeware operating system and browser. It’s not government but it is of the people and not for profit.
You cons were in charge for some time. Are you prepared to argue that the attendant deregulation has been good for business or government?
If I could find one of those recalled jars of peanut butter, would you care to sample some?
BJ, a poster child for poor white trash. Ignorant and deceivable in every field.
Or perhaps you’d like to return to the days before the Government broke up Bell?
You know, when you had to rent a phone and wait all day for a phone company repairman?
BlueJay
Posted February 26, 2009 at 9:29 pm | Permalink
I use a freeware operating system and browser.
==============
Evidently those peoples’ work is of little concern to you.
Good night scavenger bird.
Sweet dreams hanger on.
Evidently those peoples’ work is of little concern to you…That is the BITE.
Good night scavenger bird.
Bill Gates is the Antichrist. Read -
Rapture of the Geeks: When AI outsmarts IQ
We’ve invaded Mexico before for causing trouble on the border.
Pancho Villa, watch out.
ANTI,
What are the philosophies of groups like Mozilla and Ubuntu?
Who funded the development of Arpanet and Nsfnet? Who pushed the development of fiber optics and supercomputers? Who funded the development of the Mosaic web browser?
It’s not the 1800’s anymore. Individual liberty is dependent on collective action.
This is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I’ve read in months.
Try this one on, JR:
Government is at best a necessary evil; at worst, an intolerable one. – Thomas Paine.
Take a long hard look at the history of governments all over the world; especially the last 100 years or so. Then tell me that government is a friend to liberty. Governments ALWAYS trend toward tyranny, my friend. Never forget that.
Collectively, The People need to come to grips and realize that their individual freedoms are being corked up.
Collectively, we need to take it back.
BJ thinks that doing the same thing over and over again will get a different result.