ThinkFast: April 26, 2007
ThinkFast: April 26, 2007
28 percent: President Bush’s approval rating in a new Harris survey, the lowest of his presidency.
“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee” and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order. “I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter,” she told reporters.
“White House officials conducted 20 private briefings on Republican electoral prospects in the last midterm election for senior officials in at least 15 government agencies covered by federal restrictions on partisan political activity,” the White House acknowledged yesterday.
“The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court to impose tighter restrictions on the hundreds of lawyers who represent detainees at Guantánamo Bay,” proposing “new limits on the lawyers’ contact with their clients and access to evidence in their cases.”
“The White House has turned over to a House committee about 200 pages of documents” related to a suspicious contract it had with a company owned by Brent Wilkes, who pleaded guilty to bribing former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA).
“In a somber and wide-ranging assessment,” Britain’s top counterterrorism officer Peter Clarke said that Al Qaeda and its supporters have established “an inexorable trend towards more ambitious and more destructive attack planning.” “The only sensible assumption is that we shall be attacked again.”
“Escalating his campaign to remain president of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz accused the bank’s board on Wednesday of treating him ‘shabbily and unfairly,’ and appealed for more time to defend himself against allegations of favoritism and other matters.”
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) said yesterday “that the Bush administration and Republicans are not doing enough politically in Iraq.” Brownback said after meeting with Vice President Cheney and others last week, “They have a strategy, and it’s dominated by military and Maliki.”
And finally: A GOP delegate in Utah “has submitted a resolution equating illegal immigration to ‘Satan’s plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion‘ for debate at Saturday’s Utah County Republican Party Convention.” The resolution refers to a plan by the devil for a “New World Order…as predicted in the Scriptures.” State Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble (R) said, “I don’t think you’ll find much support for that sentiment.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Escalating his campaign to remain president of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz accused the bank’s board on Wednesday of treating him ‘shabbily and unfairly,’ and appealed for more time to defend himself against allegations of favoritism and other matters.â€
The fair way of treating with a nepotist in any public organization, and SPECIALLY one dedicated to combat World’s CORRUPTION, is firing him.
In fact, the WB members are treating him too fairly, because he has been appointed by the POTUS.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:23 amLOL Condi Rice wants to answer the Congress with a letter. The next time I get a court summons for anything, then I will just send a letter. Rice must testify under oath or resign > PERIOD.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:26 amAnd finally: A GOP delegate in Utah “has submitted a resolution equating illegal immigration to ‘Satan’s plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion‘ for debate at Saturday’s Utah County Republican Party Convention.†The resolution refers to a plan by the devil for a “New World Order…as predicted in the Scriptures.†State Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble (R) said, “I don’t think you’ll find much support for that sentiment.â€
Talibans’r'US
April 26th, 2007 at 9:27 amIf Condi won’t testify under oath, of if the chimp won’t order her to, it’s high time for impeachment proceedings to take center stage.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:27 amA GOP delegate in Utah “has submitted a resolution equating illegal immigration to ‘Satan’s plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion‘ for debate at Saturday’s Utah County Republican Party Convention.†The resolution refers to a plan by the devil for a “New World Order…as predicted in the Scriptures.â€
Interesting….this sounds an awful lot like a discrediting scheme. After this “nut” gets done spouting off about “Satan” and the “New World Order”, legitimate concerns about globalization will be laughed off as well…much like how “proponents” of ludicrous 9/11 theories like the ‘no planers’ and ’space beams’ serve to discredit those with legitimate concerns about the events surrounding 9/11.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:28 amWolfowitz is shabby so the bank board must fire him and tell Bush to go straight to Hell.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:28 amDo the Democrats want to win the 2008 Presidential election? Of course they do, and unfortunately, that is a major reason Speaker Pelosi has taken “impeachment off the table.†It appears the Democrats are playing politics with our lives, knowing that if nothing changes course, Iraq will be in as bad, if not worse shape by the time the 2008 Presidential elections take place; If George W. Bush is still mired in Iraq, the Democrats can claim it was all his fault, which to a large part it is, and guarantee that a Democrat will win the elections in 2008.
It’s actually a well thought-out strategy, however, Speaker Pelosi “assumes†that by 2008, we won’t be in a full-scale war with Iran – which would allow the Bush administration to declare Martial Law and effectively quash any further action by Congress – which would effectively halt any further elections until martial law (sic) was lifted. Further, the economic damage that Bush is subjecting the United States to has us on the path to bankruptcy – we are cutting vital educational programs, health care, you name it, and the people of America are suffering and paying for a war that our grandchildren will be indebted for at our current rate of spending. What about Social Security and Medicare? We are looking at the economic collapse of the country if we don’t step-in and stop the madness – and finally, Speaker Pelosi is being pressed hard to change her stance on impeachment:
Speaker Pelosi further stated:
I have to disagree with Speaker Pelosi, and I do believe the popular support IS there to successfully impeach Bush/Cheney – and once the nation is advised just how many Americans do support impeachment on both sides of the isle, the tide would turn drastically! The MSM does not express the true will of the people and actually plays-down the calls for impeachment that reverberate throughout the United States – and the Democrats are complicit in the deception of America, simply because right now, even they don’t want the Presidency!
If Bush/Cheney were impeached simultaneously, Speaker Pelosi would ascend to the Presidency – and immediately be in charge of getting us out of Iraq. That in itself is the reason “impeachment if off the table†– because then “President Pelosi†would have to effectuate a redeployment of our troops in a manner that would have the least impact for the citizens of Iraq, and attempting to guarantee that our redeployment would not allow Iraq to fall into the hands of Al Queda.
Bush hasn’t figured out how to correct the quagmire he created in Iraq, and neither have the Democrats; We know there will be an upsurge of sectarian violence when we leave, and which way the country will swing politically is anyone’s guess – but most analysts see the emergence of a government that is sympathetic, if not downright supportive of the Iranians.
Iraq is not a situation that will rectify itself by the time the 2008 Presidential elections roll around, no matter who is in charge – and the Democrats fear they would be blamed for the carnage, effectively placing a Republican in the Presidency in 2008. It will take years if not decades to repair the damage the Bush administration has wrought upon America, and while the future may be rocky, the country is tired of “politics†and now we expect action – not broken promises or a failure to act because the future is so uncertain. The strategy is one of cowardice – refusing to accept the responsibility that America bestowed on the Democrats in the 2006 elections – and if Speaker Pelosi refuses to honor the will of the people, it’s possible that a Republican may still win in 2008, simply because the electorate is tired of broken promises and politicians that place “politics†above the welfare of “we the people†who voted them into their positions of leadership.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:28 amCondi: I’ve told them that I’ve told them the truth… so I don’t need to tell them any more to help clarify anything. Simple as that.
How does Condi know what questions they will ask? Is it standard procedure to give someone involved in an investigation all the information regarding their role and the questions they will be asked in that investigation?
Arrogant hacks and fools…
April 26th, 2007 at 9:29 amHow the hell can Kinda-sleezy Rice just decide not to comply with an order like that? We can’t wait until 2008 to get rid of these scum-bags.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:29 amSecretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee†and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.
Not good enough, Condi. You have been subpoenaed.
Keep it up, though…personally, I’d love to see you locked up for failing to comply with a legal order.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:30 am“The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court to impose tighter restrictions on the hundreds of lawyers who represent detainees at Guantánamo Bay,†proposing “new limits on the lawyers’ contact with their clients and access to evidence in their cases.â€
Hrm…strange. The Justice Dept., trying to impose limits on access to the Guantanamo inmates and evidence. I wonder what they’re trying to hide…
April 26th, 2007 at 9:31 amWhy no thread on this?
Kucinich takes steps to impeach Cheney
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/kucinich-takes-steps-to-impeach-cheney.html
(Or did I miss something?)
April 26th, 2007 at 9:32 am“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee†and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order…
Since when is responding to a subpoena voluntary?
April 26th, 2007 at 9:33 am“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committeeâ€
Perhaps she has already told them all she can “remember.”
April 26th, 2007 at 9:35 amComment by Kryptik — April 26, 2007 @ 9:31 am
What seems impossible is putting even more limits to the lawyers.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:35 amWhen does Congress throw Condi in jail? Who does she think she is?
April 26th, 2007 at 9:36 am#11…I’m upset that the Progressive Blogs barely mentioned Dennis Kucinich yesterday. Keith Olberman didn’t cover him either. I did a quick check of Americablog and Huffingtonpost. Nothing. Alternet had a thread but it received little attention. Pisses me off. We should be lining up behind Dennis supporting him.
Let’s see if Dennis brings it up tonight on the Democratic debate on MSNBC.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:39 amBriseadh na Faire sez:
If you did, I did as well.
The strange TP blackout of Cheneypeachment continues…
Perhaps an admin could chime in here and let us know why this story doesn’t make the cut.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:39 amrice isks contempt of
congress charges, eh?
dangerous game of chicken,
that may be, i.m.h.o. . . .
now, it seems that the forensic expert
hired to find those r.n.c. e-mails that
went missing — 5 million at least — may
already be well on the way to the
recovery of said lost little waifs. . .
this insight brought to us — in an
April 26th, 2007 at 9:39 amalbeit back-handed way — by the
latest (failed) stall-mail from the r.n.c.’s
high-priced law firm, covington & burling. . .
I’m wondering the same, Briseadh na Faire, it’s been two days now.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:40 amPerhaps TP is waiting until another legislator joins Kucinich as a co-sponsor. It is shameful, the cowardice of the entire balance of the House of Representatives not to join this step.
Hopefully, after Saturdays events across the country, there will be stronger support.
#5 you give these people to much credit. A lot of them are just batshit insane enough to believe the crap they spout.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:41 amUh, excuse me, but when you have been issued a subpoena, you cannot just say, “Oh, no thanks!” This is the beginning of the constitutional showdown with the Whitehouse. Don’t they know the law?
April 26th, 2007 at 9:41 am“White House officials conducted 20 private briefings on Republican electoral prospects in the last midterm election for senior officials in at least 15 government agencies covered by federal restrictions on partisan political activity,†the White House acknowledged yesterday.
Apparently, the administration is under the impression that this no longer applies…we’ll see if Congress shows them the error of their ways.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:41 amequating illegal immigration to ‘Satan’s plan
I thought Mexico was a predominantly Catholic country. I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that Mexico is filled with Satan-worshiping farm workers determined to invade the United States and impose Satan’s New World Order on us. I say the only way to stop this is to boycott food. That’s right, folks, stop eating. If we stop eating, that will put pressure on family farmers to stop hiring these Devil Worshipers and rid our country once and for all of the Red Menace!
/rush
April 26th, 2007 at 9:41 amkindasleazy: “i don’t want to play in your yard again because you will now ask me actual questions, and make me look foolish when I use ‘I don’t remember that’ 150 times. I’ll just send a letter telling you to reread my completely forthcoming testimonies of the past. By the way, I loved saying that mushroom cloud line.”
poor wolfie: “waaaaah, waaaah! You can’t treat me by the same ethical standards that I apply to others. I’m above those pesky little standards. You have to give me enough time to come up with two or three new rationales for my actions. After all, that was the way we handled things in my previous position (that you should not hold against me).”
w: “i don’t understand that Harris poll; it must be a typo. Everyone in every gathering that I attend supports me 100%. I have never seen a demonstration in opposition to my policies. If there are people that disagree, they must be out of sight in the Congress. If there is a problem in the Congress, I’ll show them how wrong they are and bring them to their senses.”
April 26th, 2007 at 9:43 amWhat penalty is enforced if a subpoena is ignored?
April 26th, 2007 at 9:43 amBriseadh na Faire, TripMaster Monkey, Raven
Now if Hillary had done it, do you think TP would have posted something?
Think about it.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:44 amFailure to comply with a congressional subpoena?
Contact the Department of Justice!
Call the Attorney General!!
He’ll make sure that justice and the law of the land prevail!!!
what’s that?
oh
nevermind
April 26th, 2007 at 9:44 amChimpy’s down to 28% again!! LOL!!
Cheney’s at about 9% now. ROFL!!
April 26th, 2007 at 9:47 amKucinich Has Introduced Articles of Impeachment Against Vice President Richard Cheney
from afterdowningstreet dot com
It’s time now for us to follow through by asking the rest of Congress to get on board with the American public, and by letting the media know where we stand.
Ask your Congress Member to support impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney:
http://tinyurl.com/yttnxq
Ask members of the House Judiciary Committee and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lead, follow, or get out of the way:
http://tinyurl.com/2ar8ch
Tell the media that you support Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s proposal to begin impeachment proceedings:
April 26th, 2007 at 9:49 amhttp://tinyurl.com/2cag7t
“What penalty is enforced if a subpoena is ignored?
Comment by S.D. — April 26, 2007 @ 9:43 am”
JAIL…
April 26th, 2007 at 9:49 am#26… hacker bob:
April 26th, 2007 at 9:50 amanother irrelevant “what if”
A key to problem solving is staying present. To go back in the past and create imaginary scenarios which did not, and will not happen, is fruitless.
And besides, we all know Hillary won’t do anything to rock her little rowboat.
Hillary rarely makes an appearance on TP.
I wonder how much of that 28% approval is actually more a sign of respect for the Office rather than respect for the man??
April 26th, 2007 at 9:51 am28 percent: President Bush’s approval rating in a new Harris survey, the lowest of his presidency
Reverting to his youthful indescetion days, this morning, alleged “president” George Dumbya Bush was heard in the shower singing a rendition of the old Beatles song line “I need a fix cuz I’m going down”
April 26th, 2007 at 9:51 am#26 Now if Hillary had done it, do you think TP would have posted something?
Think about it.
Comment by hacker bob — April 26, 2007 @ 9:44 am
And if GW Bush had not been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he’ll be another drunken beggar in the streets by now. Hey, this game is funny. Let’s play more.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:52 amhacker bob sez:
No need to spend too much time mulling it over, bob…I’m certain they would have. While that’s not surprising, it is surprising that this story is being buried because Hillary is not involved. This indicates a level of preferential treatment that I had frankly hoped TP was above. We all know this site is rather left-leaning, but one would hope that they would at least grant fair coverage to a fellow Progressive…especially one with the guts and integrity of Kucinich.
By remaining silent on this issue, TP helps Hillary’s campaign, not nerely at the cost of the Kucinich campaign, but at the cost of the entire Progressive movement. I had hoped they were above this sort of behavior, but the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:53 amI feel like I am hitting my head against the wall : I keep asking the same damn question over and over and over : Why the HELL are these people not dragged out of their offices and FORCED to testify under oath for the whole world see. We need some accountibility. No more talking behind closed doors testimony. Throw them all in jail and throw away the key!
April 26th, 2007 at 9:57 amGitmo raises what I’d call ‘24′ Syndrome. When someone decides they would do whatever it takes to defend themselves, they set off down a path that will take them to places they never imagined they’d ever go. Suddenly, they’re doing the very things they urged their fellow-citizens to invade other countries to stop. Arbitrary arrests, summary convictions, torture, extrajudicial executions, noble lies & censorship, election tampering, and perjury all become excusable methods in the quest to vanquish the enemy. And that enemy becomes, with the telling of the tale, bigger, stronger, and fuzzier. And it really doesn’t matter who the enemy is –a Popish plot, the Yellow Peril, the Red Menace, the Elders’ Protocols, or the new “Islamofascists”. The important thing is that they be omnipotent, omnipresent, and irredeemable. It’s this demonic enemy that allows our rulers to create Groupthink, a unified vision of the world. And the former Good Citizen, a lover of Life, Liberty and Democracy, will soon be capable of genocide. Remember: the Neo-conservatives’s favorite author is Machiavelli of The End Justifies the Means fame.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:59 amA GOP delegate in Utah “has submitted a resolution equating illegal immigration to ‘Satan’s plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion‘.†The resolution refers to a plan by the devil for a “New World Order…as
predicted in the Scriptures.â€
The New World Order was first publicly announced by President HW “Poppy” Bush back in 1991.
Chimpy and the Repukes and PNAC support the New World Order.
So why is the Christian Reich continuing to support Chimpy??
April 26th, 2007 at 10:00 amComment by Larry from C — April 26, 2007 @ 9:49 am
There is one major issue w/ Dennis Kucinich and if you get him to reverse it I will support him all the way. He is against the 2nd Amendment and this makes him DANGEROUS!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:02 ami found this interesting… tho not surprising…
check out that photo… brrrrr…
Putin pulls Russia back from post-Cold War treaty
President Vladimir Putin today froze Russia’s compliance with the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, one of the key agreements that helped end the Cold War stand-off between Nato and the Soviet bloc.
The precise consequences of the move were unclear, but it appeared to confirm a growing assertiveness from the Russian leader, who has caused widespread concern in the West with his willingness to use Russia’s vast energy reserves as a political tool.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:06 am[...]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1708733.ece
.
Comment by Saywho — April 26, 2007 @ 10:02 am
The gun lobby in action. Don’t you feel more secure? Yeehaw.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:06 am28 percent: President Bush’s approval rating in a new Harris survey, the lowest of his presidency.
How low can you go, Chimpy?
Chimpy has now tied Carter’s worst approval rating during his presidency…and he shows no signs of stopping.
I believe that there are only two presidents with lower approval ratings now…Nixon with 24%, and Truman with 23%. That’s great company you’re keeping, Chimpy.
Interestingly enough, Truman also holds the record for for the greatest range in approval rating….from 87% (after FDR’s death) to 23% is a swing of 64 percentage points.
Chimpy’s greatest approval rating was 90% (immediately following 9/11)…his current level of 28% is a swing of 62 percentage points.
So, if things continue to deteriorate for Chimpy (and absent another catastrophic and catalyzing event — like another new Pearl Harbor, they are almost certain to), he is set to break more than one record for presidential uselessness.
Go, Chimpy, go!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:06 amCondi will go to jail for her boyfriend.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:06 amBriseadh na Faire,
Do you know what the next course of action is if Rice does not show? Can she get away with just sending a letter?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:08 amHMMMMMM…… Now we will have to call the 29%ers the 28%ers!!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:08 amHe is against the 2nd Amendment and this makes him DANGEROUS!
Comment by Saywho
A guy that wants to ban guns running out of control is dangerous because…?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:09 amWTF! If you are a christian or mormon or whatever and you beleive the scriptures and you beleive they state there will be a new world order, then why fight it? I mean would you have fought Christ dying to redeeem us of our sins? Thing about faith is you can’t be selective, it don’t work that way. Embrace scripture and do Christ work here on earth, after all, we beleive he will take care of the rest.
Stan
April 26th, 2007 at 10:09 amagainst the 2nd amendment? … that’s highly doubtful…
April 26th, 2007 at 10:09 ami don’t suppose you can provide proof of that statement…
Evil Spaniard & Raven
Read TMMs #35. He hit the nail on the head.
Why is Think PROGRESS working against Progressives?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:12 amkaty: Russia has the largest gas reservoirs in the world under Syberia. China is moving fast toward renewable energy. Meanwhile, the US keeps invading countries for a resource that wont last 100 years.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:12 am*
APRIL 28 NATIONWIDE IMPEACHMENT ACTIONS
April 28, 2007: Impeachment Summer Begins This Spring!
http://a28.org/
see also: http://www.democrats.com/
April 26th, 2007 at 10:13 am…
Comment by katy — April 26, 2007 @ 10:06 am
I find far more scary the attitude of Bush in the case of the Non Proliferation Treaty involving the development of more and better nukes, and the possession of Israel (at a short trip from European coasts) of more than 400 nuclear warheads.
Bush’s face isn’t pretty either.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:14 amRe: Kucinich
The last I heard, he had decided to hold off because of Shooter’s leg clot. I hadn”t heard anything beyond that, so maybe that’s why — he hasn’t done it yet?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:15 amIt was Deja ‘Vu all over again watching Bill Moyer interview Knight Ridder reporters last night.
If you didn’t catch it, try to watch the remainder of the series on PBS.
Cheney & Kristol were at their lying best, making shit up faster than a 3rd grader lying to the teacher.
Complicity and a lapdog approach by the entire media during the onset of the Iarq invasion was apparent throughout the program.
Presently, we are hearing the same old shit daily from Cheney & Kristol. Why is ‘lil Billy Boy still allowed on the air? This guy should be put on a Baghdad street with McPain, both in Speedos, and filmed to see how fast the can run or cry.
TP, how about some Kucinich coverage? We know he’s not the most visible congressman, but how in the Hell is impeaching Cheney NOT NEWS?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:16 amGuess who enforces subpoenas for Congress?
The US Attorneys.
Since Gonzo has fired all the “disloyal” ones, you can expect that no US Attorney will touch this.
Cunti Rice is going to thumb her nose at the law and get away with it.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:17 am#48…
April 26th, 2007 at 10:18 amI did read TMM’s post, and gained a new perspective from it.
(Thanks, TMM)
As well, your’s is a good question, hacker bob, and I thank you.
And, personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass about Hillary, other than wishing she would let it go………..
against the 2nd amendment? … that’s highly doubtful…
i don’t suppose you can provide proof of that statement…
Comment by katy — April 26, 2007 @ 10:09 am
From http://kucinich.us/node/4338
I am offering the following approach to change America’s direction away from death and disintegration and towards life and social cohesiveness:
1. Passage of HR 808, legislation to create a cabinet level Department of Peace and Nonviolence to deal with the root causes of all violence in our society and work towards creating structures of for peace through education and the support of community mediation programs, counseling services, restorative justice practices, etc. To address issues of domestic violence, child abuse, violence in the schools, racial violence and gun related violence.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:19 am2. Passage of HR 676 to provide Medicare for all, a universal not-for-profit health care system which would not only cover all necessary health care (including primary, long-term, prescription drugs, vision care) at NO extra cost, but would also provide all Americans with access to comprehensive mental health services
3. A ban on hand guns, legislation which I am currently drafting.
#16 Larry from C
There was a story on the impeahment of cheney yesterday on Huffington and Raw Story in the morning but it disappeared in the afternoon. I thought that was odd. myself.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:19 amKucinich filed Impeachment Articles on Tuesday.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:20 amDennis Kucinich on Gun Control from Onthe issues.org
-Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks.
-Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.
-Require a license for gun possession.
-Establish a national database of ballistic “fingerprints” to track guns used in criminal activities.
-Renew the ban on the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns.
-Strengthen the enforcement of existing federal restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
A YES vote would:
Prohibit individuals from filing a qualified civil liability action
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Dismiss of all civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition
Sounds like the commonsense positions on Gun Control to me.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:20 amThis is the SECOND time that Chimpy has gone down to a 28% rating.
He first went there in January, per a CBS poll.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:21 amOh hell. Let’s just get started by nuking Iran and Russia and all those other non-believing heathen countries.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:23 amLet Armageddon begin so we and our good wonderful christian republican friends can join our hearts and hands in our heaven. The rest of the world can just suffer.
Bye Bye
Comment by Tom3 — April 26, 2007 @ 10:17 am
I am hoping you are wrong, but probably not. The US Attorneys have been pretty responsible lately with Renzi, Doolittle, and a host of other corrupt republicans. However, those are little fish and I doubt they will have the courage to take on a shark like Condi. We’ll see.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:23 am#57 Mary…I saw a link to a story on Huffpo. But it was not a story you could comment on. I guess Arianna thought it wasn’t important enough to to let the Huffpo crowd discuss it.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:25 amComment by Raven — April 26, 2007 @ 10:18 am
While you know I am rather Conservative, I have to respect Kucinich because he seem to value integrity over politics and has maintained a consistent position in regards to Iraq.
And have you seen his wife?!?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:26 am#53. I caught half of it and it boiled my blood all over again. With so many twists and shell games since the begining of this conflict that I had forgotten some of the nuances that tipped the scales.
Liked the part of it’s cheaper to hire an “expert” like Kristol instead of doing the hard reporting.
Now let’s have some threads on the historic articles of impeachment on the Vice President. Don’t select the news for us. I’m hunting now for details.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:26 amChimpy is catching up to Harry S Truman’s record low.
BTW, that record low rating was in 1953, when the US was in the third year of a quagmire in Korea. A stalemated meatgrinder for US troops.
Now we’re in the 5th year of the Iraq war, a quagmire and a meatgrinder too.
Chimpy has nowhere to go but down. I think he’ll break Truman’s record by the end of his reign.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:26 amComment by Evil Spaniard — April 26, 2007 @ 9:27 am
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — April 26, 2007 @ 9:41 am
There is an ISSUE with immigration and here it is…
#1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98
#2 http://www.jbs.org/node/3594
#3 http://www.canamex.org/
#4 http://www.nascocorridor.com/
How is it that illegal immigration is a good thing in this? If you followed the links you would see that #1 they intend to move to the Amero Dollar, the North American Union is to be the joining of Canada, USA and Mexico, #3 the CANAMEX Corridor will link Canada to Mexico and breach both boarders. It will also allow trucks in the USA that are not safe and here is what it IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE http://www.nascocorridor.com/
April 26th, 2007 at 10:26 amhb,
personally, I was criticizing your “what if” style, because yourself, admit it, would have been the first one jumping to the troath of anyone bringing a hypothetical scenario like the one you came up with.
The motives because that particular new hasn’t been discussed officially in this board? I don’t know, but if you want, I can speculate also. Anyhow, I particularly don’t like Hillary, because she is too much in bed with the USA right (even being hated by a lot of R’s), and I don’t know enough of Kuinich to give an informed opinion. But, being pro-gun control seems a strong point to be liked. Anyhow, pro-gun control in the USA doesn’t mean a lot. It’s the same than “free ride with weapons” in many other countries.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:27 amI invite Hillary supporters to explain why they believe she is the best Democratic candidate. I’ll put Dennis Kucinich up against her any day. He wins, IMO, on just about every issue compared to her. Edwards too.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:28 amjuan and spaniard (yeow! double dose! yes!)
(ok… settle down, girl)…
i agree with both your comments… i should have elaborated somewhat and included my thoughts upon reading that: “thanks again, dubya”…
April 26th, 2007 at 10:28 amhis incredibly near-sighted stance is wreaking havok all over the world…
…
“#1 they intend to move to the Amero Dollar, the North American Union is to be the joining of Canada, USA and Mexico, #3 the CANAMEX Corridor will link Canada to Mexico and breach both boarders.”
This is part of that SATANIC New World Order the Utah GOPers are worried about.
Who is doing this? Chimpy and the Repukes are doing it. LOL!!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:30 amChris L sez:
If Rice fails to comply with the subpoena, Contempt of Congress is in order. If the resolution of Contempt passes, it must then be enforced.
This is where it gets tricky. Up until the middle of the 19th century, Congress would enforce contempt citations itself, with the sergeants-at-arms taking guilty parties into custody. Unfortunately, the procedure then changed, with Congress then asking a U.S. attorney to certify contempt citations and bring them before a federal judge. I believe this change was made to eliminate the time limit of incarceration for the contempt citation, which was formerly limited to the life of the Congress originally issuing the contempt charge, but as you can see, it raises other problems…problem that first surfaced during the Teapot Dome scandal, in which Attorney General Harry Daugherty failed to prosecute corrupt officials (including his own brother) who refused to testify to Congress…problems that are very much a concern today, for reasons too obvious to anyone here to waste time delineating.
In short, we’re fast approaching a Constitutional Crisis that will make the Teapot Dome scandal look like a sewing circle. We truly do live in interesting times (and not in the good way, but in the old Chinese curse kind of way). ^_^
April 26th, 2007 at 10:30 amThose unsafe Mexican trucks are already allowed in most US states.
This is an obvious attempt to break the Teamsters and get rid of American trucking jobs. US companies cannot compete with the Mexicans.
Thank you Repukes and Bill Clinton for NAFTA. It’ll shaft ya.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:31 am#67 Comment by Saywho — April 26, 2007 @ 10:26 am
The same things (one currency, better communications and free travel) is happening in Europe and we’ve not seen signs of the Devil around.
Or you mean that the CANAMEX corridor is really the CANAMEXHELL corridor?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:34 amComment by Saywho — April 26, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Exactly, Saywho. See my earlier post on the subject.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:35 amComment by Evil Spaniard — April 26, 2007 @ 10:27 am
My only point was that this site is very “pro-Hillary”. you cabn speculate about my motives all you like.
As for the gun controll issuse:
I am all for reasonable gun controll measures, but not in favor of banning them outright.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:36 am… still waiting for PROOF that kucinich is
“AGAINST THE 2ND AMENDMENT” …
i see good ideas on REGULATING guns and ammo,
but nothing about him being AGAINST the 2nd …
that’s ok… we don’t need another debate on that subject…
April 26th, 2007 at 10:41 ami just get testy when people make unsubstantiated accusations…
just sayin’…
#77 ..Katy..in the mind of Gun Nuts ANY REGULATION against gun ownership is unacceptable.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:45 amGuess we will have to start calling the 29%ers the 28%ers now. Stay tuned for more downward changes!!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:45 amA guy that wants to ban guns running out of control is dangerous because…?
Comment by Juan C — April 26, 2007 @ 10:09 am
Juan,
We have talked about this and since US laws don’t apply to you why address me at all? Many times I have posted about the 2nd Amendment and your response is always the same. So, for what it’s worth I do not support Republicans or Democrats that have resolved to dismantle the 2nd Amendment or any of the Amendments found in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.
George Washington said, “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” With that it is easy to see why the Founding Fathers decided to include in the 2nd Amendment this phrase“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” You can say what you want however Dennis Kucinich intends to INFRINGE ON MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and that is Hella DANGEROUS!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:46 amkaty ;)
I wasnt correcting your comment. Just adding.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:48 amhere is another version, one i should have posted instead:
Putin ramps up pressure over arms treaty
MOSCOW, Russia (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin called Thursday for imposing a moratorium on Moscow’s participation in a key Soviet-era arms control treaty until the United States and other NATO members ratify the agreement.
Putin lamented that Russia had committed to the revised version of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, but “our partners are behaving incorrectly, to say the least,” by failing to fulfill the agreement.
“I consider it worthwhile to declare a moratorium until all NATO countries ratify it … and begin to strictly abide by it,” Putin said in his annual state-of-the-nation address.
[...]
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/26/putin.arms.ap/
can’t really say i blame him… thanks again, dubya…
April 26th, 2007 at 10:51 am.
Larry :
I agree with you wholeheartedly about Kucinich. The ONLY reason Hillary, Obama and Edwards are front-runners are because they have the most money.
In a perfect world, Kucinich would win.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:51 amSaywho:
The use of White Phosphorous as non-incendiary weapon by the US forces also didnt apply to people in Fallujah. Nonetheless they seemed to affected by WP.
Your reference about the country I live is irrelevant to the debate.
I can agree that is a Constitutional right. But so it was in the law having slaves back then or in 1833 textile factories in England kids over 9 years old have to worked up to 12 hours a day. I havent seen any uprising by the American people in 200 years. That ammendment is obsolete.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:55 amA guy that wants to ban guns running out of control is dangerous because…?
Comment by Juan C — April 26, 2007 @ 10:09 am
Juan,
Katy..in the mind of Gun Nuts ANY REGULATION against gun ownership is unacceptable.
Comment by Larry from C — April 26, 2007 @ 10:45 am
This is true in a sense since the 2nd Amendment is a NON-INFRINGING right that happens to be getting INFRINGED all over the place!
As it happens Dennis Kucinich supports a Handgun Ban and the Assault Weapon Ban. The original Assault Weapon Ban was lifted and so millions of Americans recovered weapons that they had shipped away for safety or purchased new ones. A ban will make owners do this again.
A weapons ban of any kind at this point will violate my 2nd and 4th Amendment Rights that are PROMISED in the Bill of Rights found in the US Constitution!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:58 amI did a quick search for photos of Kucinich and his wife. I have a new-found respect for that man.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:59 amkaty ;)
I wasnt correcting your comment. Just adding.
Comment by Juan C — April 26, 2007 @ 10:48 am
oh, i know that… and thanks… i was “correcting” myself, i guess…
hey, while i’ve got you – are you familiar at all with BELIZE?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:59 ammy son and his gf are planning a trip there in june…
this mom is a little apprehensive (and a LOT jealous)…
wondered if you had any ideas or advice, from your perspective…
…
BTW, my English is better than the one I show here…I just dont have time to do proofreading. (Lame excuse)
April 26th, 2007 at 10:59 am#84: The Second Amendment cannot be said to forbid all state regulation of gun ownership. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has consistently found it does not guarantee and individual’s right to bear arms, but only in the context of a militia.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:00 am#77 ..Katy..in the mind of Gun Nuts ANY REGULATION against gun ownership is unacceptable.
Comment by Larry from C — April 26, 2007 @ 10:45 am
i hear you… sad but true…
April 26th, 2007 at 11:01 amclosed mindedness is truly unfortunate…
dkos had a great article on Kucinich.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:02 amhttp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/23/113236/176
I live in Cleveland, vote democrat, and don’t like the guy. He’s too fond of the camera.
“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee†and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.
I’ll tell you when you’ve answered the questions and when you’re done answering questions! Okay?!!
I don’t know how Waxman can keep from going apeshit all over these arrogant assholes. I swear I’d jump right down her throat.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:02 amJuan C sez:
We haven’t seen an administration with so much blatant contempt for the rule of law in 200 years, either.
Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Our Founding Fathers were painfully aware of this when they authored the Second Amendment. Now, over 230 years later, it is anything but obsolete.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:03 amGun ownership is a PROVISIONAL right, unlike the 1st Amendment.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:06 amSaywho, Constitutional rights are regulary “infringed” upon, specifically regarding public safety (there’a right to free speech, but it’s illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded room).
April 26th, 2007 at 11:09 amwondered if you had any ideas or advice, from your perspective…
Comment by katy — April 26, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Too little. I was once there but just for a few hours in the border with Mexico. They say it is a PARADISE. Belize is a small country that lives out of tourists…so you dont have nothing to worry about.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:10 am#90 Perhaps he runs to cameras because the national corporate media refuses to even mention his name (because he’s anti-war). He has to hustle if he’s to get any coverage at all.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:13 amOh, thank God! I was stressing about jury duty next week but now I’ll just send a letter and reference the Secretary of State’s precedence in not responding. I’m sure it will be fine and nothing will happen.
The arrogance AND incompetence of nearly EVERYONE in this administration is STAGGERING!
April 26th, 2007 at 11:14 amBrent Wilkes has not pleaded guilty to anything. He is under indictment. You are confusing him with Mitchell Wade, former officer of MZM, Inc.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:16 amLarry, it could also be because he just loves the limelight. Remember, he was the last to drop out of the primary races last time.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:17 amOr the national corporate media doesn’t cover him because he’s largely inconsequential, rendered so by his fellow party members due to his far left beliefs.
Honestly, I’ve never met anyone in Cleveland who likes the man’s politics.
And Cleveland is a liberal town.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:17 amso you dont have nothing to worry about.
Comment by Juan C — April 26, 2007 @ 11:10 am
uh huh… try that when you get kids :-)
but thanks for that little bit… truly appreciated…
April 26th, 2007 at 11:17 amBy remaining silent on this issue, TP helps Hillary’s campaign, not nerely at the cost of the Kucinich campaign, but at the cost of the entire Progressive movement. I had hoped they were above this sort of behavior, but the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 26, 2007 @ 9:53 am
As I recall, Jude was on one of the cable newscasts and frankly said that the Democrats should NOT consider impeachment. Shortly after that, he left TP to join Hillary’s campaign staff. He’s one of many “progressives” who believe that having Bush/Cheney remain in power is better, politically, for the democrats. I find that rationale absolutely immoral. I said it then, and I’ll say it now. If you care more about your party than the American people, the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, Civil Liberties, etc., you are absolutely NO BETTER than the Republicans and their talking heads.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:21 amBRUSSELS (AP) – The United States denied Tuesday that it is considering proposals that would allow Iran to partially retain its uranium enrichment program. “We’re not considering any proposals that would allow the Iranians to retain any enrichment-related activities,”
therefore Iran must go its civil use of Nuclear power itself , while were being fed that their building weapons which is crap , they want nuclear power and have the right to Nuclear power
America has been played by Iran in Iraq and they are the winners, America is well and trully losing its bridges and empire ……….
Good riddance to a self indulgent country that looks after its own interests, EVEN IF THAT MEANS CREATING WAR IN OTHER COUNTRIES THATS WHY WE HATE YOU
April 26th, 2007 at 11:23 amYour reference about the country I live is irrelevant to the debate.
I can agree that is a Constitutional right. But so it was in the law having slaves back then or in 1833 textile factories in England kids over 9 years old have to worked up to 12 hours a day. I havent seen any uprising by the American people in 200 years. That ammendment is obsolete.
Comment by Juan C — April 26, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Juan,
You are a MEXICAN and so you can’t vote in the USA. Talking to you over and over about my RIGHTS as an American is a WASTE of my energy and so your location is more than RELEVANT since you are the one who is provoking a debate.
Now you commented and brought up Sweat Shops, England and 200 years of history….Then you tell me about how one of my RIGHTS that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is according to you ‘obsolete’ The Founding Fathers thought about this and realized that the citizenry of the USA has the GOD given RIGHT to PROTECT THEMSELVES against individuals, groups or governments. To protect that notion the RIGHT was made NON INFRINGABLE since we had that RIGHT before the Constitution.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:24 am#98…Or the national corporate media doesn’t cover him because he’s largely inconsequential
(Unfortunately the national corporate media MAKES candidates consequential)
rendered so by his fellow party members due to his far left beliefs.
(The man cannot be influenced by Corporate money unlike a great many of the Democrats. So they marginalize him to keep his refreshing ideas from seeing the light of day.)
Honestly, I’ve never met anyone in Cleveland who likes the man’s politics.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:37 am(How many times has he been elected?)
Gun ownership is a PROVISIONAL right, unlike the 1st Amendment.
Comment by Larry from C — April 26, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Larry,
Here is a quote from the Original President of the USA named George Washington…
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.
Now, I don’t think I have to paste the Constitution in here even though it is wonderful to read. My mind and gut both tell me that George Washington has more clout with me even though he is dead than you do as a living person!
April 26th, 2007 at 11:41 amGun ownership is a PROVISIONAL right, unlike the 1st Amendment.
Comment by Larry from C — April 26, 2007 @ 11:06 am
exactly… that first part of the sentence so many “forget” about…
the part about a “well regulated militia being necessary”…
it’s really too bad those founders were not psychic enough to envision
automatics and armor piercers and such… i’d think they would have had something to say about that – namely, a ban…
just sayin’…
April 26th, 2007 at 11:41 am“28 percent: President Bush’s approval rating in a new Harris survey, the lowest of his presidency.”
by thinkprogress.org
I am wondering why thinkprogress.org doesn’t report the fact Harry Reids approval rating………………………………..yes, lower than that of President Bush, 22% according to the Harris Poll.
when will thinkprogress.org be honest, can it be honest? is honesty part of the thinkprogress.org’s language?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:41 am#101…impeach….NOTHING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is MORE IMPORTANT then returning the Constitution as the law of the land. Returning the USA to being governed by LAWS not MEN.
If Bush Cheney are allowed to get away with their two dozen impeachable offenses WHAT WILL THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION be allowed to get away with?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:42 amHow about Nancy Pelosi’s rating? that is right ladies and gentleman, 30% according to the Harris Poll.
so, the average approval rating of the Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress is……26%, 2% points less than President Bush!
what do you liberals constantly say about rightwingers being with 30% of the population? I thought the rest of the population approved of Democratic leaders….what happened?
If we apply what Liberals have been saying about approval ratings and Bush, Pelosi and Reid are also out of touch with the American people! they are pushing agendas that only 26% ofthe American people support! right Liberals?
ouch!
April 26th, 2007 at 11:45 amtrooll(s) -
April 26th, 2007 at 11:54 amYOU ARE LYING AND YOU ARE A FOOL TO BELIEVE THE LIES.
…
Saywho:
Provoking a debate is a good thing. Not a bad one. Or I dont know what you mean by debate.
I was pointing that that right is obsolete. From the caveman ages. Period. The Constitution is not a Bible, there are no dogmas there, thats why it can be changed. Who told you it was a God given right? Where in the Bible says that you need a gun to protect yourself? Or better yet, which god said that? Shangoo, the African God? Yahweh? Allah? Zeus? You write the same words any right wing propagandist writes. God given right…come on. Stop using dramatical phrases.
Sometimes your rights go over a lot of people. US corporations interests have been all the time over the rights of people from all across the world including their right to live. I think Im in no need to post proof of this, it is a common fact. So, your right to bear arms to defend yourself is simply, put, stupid. Other countries dont have that right and they seem to defend themselves from crime, pretty good or to defend themselves from governments. Guns against the government are useless. I will say this again, when you all organized and make a general strike, the government will freak out, but you wont cuz you are the laziest, wealthies, working class in the world, so why bother? You keep your right to bear arms…lets see how many Littletons and Vtechs we get to see.
Im not a Mexican. You assume too much.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:54 amJuan C,
there are many that will say that your argument, put simply, is stupid. The right to bare arms is in our Constitution. According to the Constituion, all the rights afforded to us by the Constitution are God given right. So, if you are wondering which God it refers to, you need to read what the Founding Fathers believed in. 99.9% of them where Christians, so I would bet my life that the God they speak of is the Christian God. Which at the end it is one and the same that all religions refer to, just pray to Him differently.
Other countries do have stronger gun control laws, and guess what, many of these countries still have huge gun related crimes and crimes committed with guns. Look at England, the country with the strongest gun control laws, has this stopped criminals in England from committing crimes with guns? of course not. In fact, if you do your research, you will find that crimes carried out with guns in England are on the rise, despite the strong guns laws there.
Your comments could also be dismissed by those on the right as anything that a left wing propagandist right. So, I would urge you to stay away from stereotyping people. It doesn’t do anyone any good.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:02 pmHow is it that illegal immigration is a good thing in this? If you followed the links you would see that #1 they intend to move to the Amero Dollar, the North American Union is to be the joining of Canada, USA and Mexico, #3 the CANAMEX Corridor will link Canada to Mexico and breach both boarders. It will also allow trucks in the USA that are not safe and here is what it IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE http://www.nascocorridor.com/
Comment by Saywho — April 26, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Illegal immigration is NOT the causative factor of this issue (which seems to be happening largely outside approval by the Congress…interesting?) This is big business driving this, the same ones who claimed that NAFTA was going to help everyone in the three countries. As for as the proposal for a mutual currency with Canda and Mexico, Congress has complete power over determining the coin of the realm, as it were. To my knowledge, no legislation for this has ever been introduced.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:04 pmValianttheHater:
I propose you this:
1) no more insults
2) no more leftists/rightists are this, or that
3) no more written lying laughter (hahahaha, etc.)
4) no more lies
5) no more spell checks (in a bad way)
6) no more words to demean the other: son, sparky, little one, etc…
7) no more country references in order to describe the other
8) quotes with source
9) mo more broad generalizations.
I will apply these above for myself, too. Im trying to raise the debate. Just that. Are you in, Valiant?
Comment by Juan C — April 25, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 12:06 pmJuan C,
if you want the 2nd Amendment overturn, have your representative right an amendment approved to overturn it, but liberals can’t have it both ways. They claim to love and cherish the Constitution, they claim that the Constitution needs to be respected, yet they hate the 2nd Amendment, and make up rights that the Founding Fathers never intended to be rights, like the so called right to kill a baby in the womb of a mother. I can assure you that the Founding Fathers are crying over this so called right found in the Constitution back in 1973, which seemed have gotten lost since the Constitutional Convention.
As for guns against a government being useless, why do you have such a defeatess attitude, why? You might want to read Thomas Jefferson, who said that it was the citizens’ moral duty to once in a while shake things up to keep the tree of liberty going. (sorry paraphrasing).
Now I do believe that the 2nd Amendment comes with responsibilities, which many on the right refuse to believe or adhere to. Just like the left refuses to be responsible when it comes to free speech. Our Constitution grants us great freedoms and rights, but all these freedoms and rights come with a side note called: RESPONSIBILITY! Freedom of Speech, but there needs to be responsible freedom of speech, which the left refuses to adhere to. The right to own guns is our 2nd Amendment right, but this comes with responsibility, which the right refuses to adhere to.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:09 pm1) no more insults
—-I can agree to this
2) no more leftists/rightists are this, or that
—-Only if you stop doing it
3) no more written lying laughter (hahahaha, etc.)
—-I can agree to this
4) no more lies
—who will determine that whether it is a lie or not? you? I don’t think so. I speak my mind and what I know, if you consider these lies, that is on you.
5) no more spell checks (in a bad way)
—–what?
6) no more words to demean the other: son, sparky, little one, etc…
—–I can agree to this
7) no more country references in order to describe the other
—–You are the only that has done this. But I can agree to this
8) quotes with source
—-I can’t promise I will do it every time. I post from work and I don’t have the time or energy to find all the sources. I tell you what on this one. When everyone that posts on thinkprogress.org that makes claims or says something is a fact puts up sources for their so called fact, I will start doing it to. Don’t ask of me, what you aren’t willing to ask of others.
9) mo more broad generalizations.
—-I can agree to this.
I will apply these above for myself, too. Im trying to raise the debate. Just that. Are you in, Valiant?
—–yes, let us raise the debate which has been at a very low level for way too long. We can disagree with respect. Agreed.
what say you?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:13 pmHow is the left irresponsible regarding free speech?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:16 pmDo they charge journalists with contempt for refusing to reveal their sources?
Do they designate “free speech zones”?
Do they kick out and arrest dissenters at campaign stops?
Do they put dissenters on the No Fly List with airports as possible terrorists?
Lets go.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:18 pmWilco,
No, they call on people to be fired, and put up campaigns against people who speak against what the liberals in American believe.
They also insult anyone who disagrees with them. They try to shut-up people through shame.
and yes they do kick out and arrest dissenters at campaign stops. Seen it happen when Hillary has been speaking, when Obama has been speaking.
there are many cities which are controlled by Democrats and they set up speech free zones. So, according to you, these Liberals, Democrats are steppinng on free speech.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pmall the left has to offer is fear, doom and gloom. how truly sad for the left.
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 26, 2007 @ 11:39 am
This is your comment in a thread above. See, what I mean? Posts like this are uniformative and shallow. I havent ever written: all the right wings in the world are made by stupid f*cks. They are just like Hitler, blah, blah, blah.
Yours (some) are provokative, inflaming posts. You will do is favor if you engage without posts like this. I promise I would do the same.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:25 pmCaption:
“… the bottom has a rocky reputation….”
(Joe Walsh)
April 26th, 2007 at 12:26 pm“I can assure you that the Founding Fathers are crying over this so called right found in the Constitution back in 1973, which seemed have gotten lost since the Constitutional Convention.”
Were there no abortions performed at the time the constitution was written?
If your assertion, that the founding fathers would have disagreed with abortions, and women’s access to them, why then did they not include an amendment outlawing abortion? The rights of women were near-nonexistent at that time; should the founding fathers have outlawed abortion — in effect giving the fetus more rights than the mother held?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:26 pmGun ownership is a PROVISIONAL right, unlike the 1st Amendment.
Comment by Larry from C — April 26, 2007 @ 11:06 am
exactly… that first part of the sentence so many “forget†about…
the part about a “well regulated militia being necessaryâ€â€¦
it’s really too bad those founders were not psychic enough to envision
automatics and armor piercers and such… i’d think they would have had something to say about that – namely, a ban…
just sayin’…
Comment by katy — April 26, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Let us consider what you just wrote Katy… Here is the agreement and the full 2nd Amendment….
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” This part says that the citizens of the USA are expected to play a role in the defense of the USA and that gun owners would be the first line of defense regardless of the threat.
This is followed by a COMMA ,,,,, and this comma separates as well as joins a related idea. This is done all over the constitution and is a catch all.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms”, Sums things up since it calls it a RIGHT (the right of self defense that GOD gave us) and tells us that we can in fact HAVE and USE ARMS (guns, lasers, etc.)
“Shall not be infringed”, insists that both individuals and militias shall never have their RIGHT TO BEAR REMOVED….
We must make some distinctions here. I did not imply that states could not regulate weapons. Guns are in fact regulated and for good reasons. However BANNING handguns and assault weapons does in fact infringe on the 2nd Amendment and the 4th Amendment.
Regulation and BANNING are not one in the same. Dennis Kucinich wants to implement a GUN BAN and the millions of legal gun owners like me will not vote for him.
Now you brought up
it’s really too bad those founders were not psychic enough to envision
automatics and armor piercers and such… i’d think they would have had something to say about that – namely, a ban…
just sayin’…
James Madison and the rest would have been impressed by automatic weapons. Regardless, citizens of the USA cannot legally own fully automatic weapons unless by special permit. The founding fathers would in no doubt want citizens to be armed in an equal or better way than our enemies. No BAN would be acceptable to Washington who again said, “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
Katy how would you go about exercising your 3rd Amendment RIGHT (No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law) if you didn’t have a gun?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:30 pmjust sayin’…
How is campaigning to get someone kickd off the air an affront to free speech instead of an exercise thereof?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:32 pmIt’s not as though Imus had any right to say what he wanted with impunity, free speech protection does not extend to the workplace, and certainly not to public airwaves.
Liberals, etc, have every right to do their best to get what they consider hate speech off the air. You can go ahead and blame them, since they had absolutely no power to get him kicked off. MSNBC could have stuck by Imus as could CBS radio. They decided not to. It was a business decision.
And I love your statement about liberals trying to shut up people who don’t agree with they by using shame!
Hilarious.
How many times has this administration questioned dissenters patriotism?
How many times have Republicans accused Dems of treason?
Your other statements? I’ve never heard them to be true, but I can’t dismiss them. But your statement to the effect of “democrats do the same thing” doesn’t mean it’s only the democrats who have a problem being responsible about free speech.
Juan,
that comment was made before our agreement. I have posted since. But I do stand by the post, I can worded better. But I do believe that politicians on the left use fear to get people to vote for them. I don’t think anyone can deny this.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:33 pmCondi-ment apparently has misplaced her memo reminding her that . . .
April 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pmElections Have Consiquences .
If she would just use a brain cell she would figure out that this is a perfect
opportunity to display her latest in shoe fashions.
I think one of the best arguments in favor of the 2nd, is defense against the government, not against a foreign enemy. I’m pretty confident our armed services can adequately defend this nation against foreign enemies. I want to be confident the American people can defend themselves against a government run amok.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:39 pmWe can’t if we’re not allowed to arm ourselves.
I don’t think anyone can deny this.
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 26, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
No examples as usual. And no, anonymous posters on a website don’t count.
I can give you three examples of republicans doing the same for every one you post of a democrat. Give it up. Your side has been doing it for decades.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:41 pmWilco,
who decides what hate speech is? you, our government? this is just a cover to step on the right of people to say whatever they want. Why do people on your side constantly want regulations, and laws to control what people say, do, don’t say or don’t do.
the ACLU didn’t think that the Nazis walking in Skokie, IL back in the 1970s was hate speech, right? The ACLu defended and won the right of the Illinois Nazi party to march through Skokie, IL chanting anti-Jew slurs. was this hate speech?
I mean, honestly Wilco, who decides what hate speech is? you are opening up pandoras box, and it can be used to step on the freedom of speech for people.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:42 pmBut I do believe that politicians on the left use fear to get people to vote for them. I don’t think anyone can deny this.
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 26, 2007 @
Im gonna have to ask. What do you mean by left?
And, I think nobody plays the fear card more effectively against its population than the US. Probably the Soviet Union under Stalin played the same fear card, although I guess Russians were less naive. Just take a look at all the “enemies” the US has had. For real, to say that Nicaragua or Grenada or Cuba or Iraq or Iran was/is a threat to US is…well, lets put it softly… unlikey (but I mean stupid) So, that goes for Rep and Dems presidents.
In the last years, the right wing (which are not true conservatives, I hope you had noticed that: they are national extremists, hacks) has cast a shroud of fear against US population with the terror excuse. I dont say that terrorism is not a problem to engage with, Im just saying that people die more often for other reasons than terrorism. We should put things in perspective. Do you remember the propaganda against a Democrat-run Congress by the Bush, Cheney and the right wing? They said that Democrats winning would embolden the enemy and stuff??? Thats simply outrageous saying that all the people who voted for Democrats support terrorism is almost criminal.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:44 pmbarfly,
Seen “Inconvinient Truth”? It is all full of fear. It uses fear and emtion to get people to act to the so called Global Warming.
Heard Democrats speack about Bush? All they say how he and Republicans need to go because they have trampled all over the Constitiution and how we are next. Once again, fear.
For every three Republicans that you give me using fear, I can give you 100 Democrats using fear.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:44 pmWe can’t if we’re not allowed to arm ourselves.
Comment by Wilco — April 26, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Well, you are armed now but your government is still there…so how does it work?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:45 pmFor every three Republicans that you give me using fear, I can give you 100 Democrats using fear.
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 26, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Bush, Cheney, Giuliani. Your turn.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:47 pm#109 Valiantthehater
How about Nancy Pelosi’s rating? that is right ladies and gentleman, 30% according to the Harris Poll.
Glad to see you’re still working that gross dishonesty angle. You don’t bother to mention that Pelosi and Reid have a much higher “Not Sure” rating than any of the others in the poll. Only 2% aren’t sure how they feel about Bush, while a whopping 70% give him a negative rating.
Think about it. 70% of the country is certain that Bush is doing a lousy job. What the f*ck have you got to be cocky about? Please get a clue.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:48 pmIm not a Mexican. You assume too much.
Comment by Juan C — April 26, 2007 @ 11:54 am
Well Mexican, South American, Canadian, English, etc. are not voters in the USA unless you have immigrated. I remember you mentioned several times that you are not a US citizen and so that excludes you from voting in the US. You should join the debate about the laws of whatever nation you live in are.
I would imagine that I am not assuming anything when I say that everything in your 11:54 post to me is utter crap. You said that defending myself against a government gone “police state†is pointless! What an idiot you are. Honestly, do you realize how silly that is? Do you realize that makes you a socialist or even worse a fascist?
The Colonists defeated the British Army in the Revolutionary War with GUNS. Bowing to a dictator is worse than DEATH! Juan, you are an idiot!
April 26th, 2007 at 12:48 pmJuan C,
did you see the anti-Bush commerecials put up in Texas when he was running for election and re-election? the Democratic Party and groups attached to the Democratic Party said that if Bush was elected Texas would go back to slaving blacks. Is this not fear?
or how about the anti-Bush commercials that actually showed Hitler and Bush side by side and compared Nazi Germany to how Bush has run this country? Is this not fear?
How about Al Sharpton saying that if Republicans are elected to power, blacks will be enslaved again. Is this not fear?
As for the countries that you put up as not being our enemies, I guess you can guess that I 100% disagree. Cuba, yes, a great threat, especially when it was allowing the Soviet Union to put up nuclear tipped missles that could reach continental United States. Iraq, the whole world thought it had WMDs and that it was a threat. It was certainly a threat to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, right? Nicaragua, we had to stop the spread of communism there, which we had already seen what disaster it had and has made in Cuba.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:49 pmI’m not advocating any regulations against free speech except for the obviously necessary ones.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:49 pmI don’t like hate speech/crime legislation. It’s just not right. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want in public and that’s how it should be (so long as it doesn’t endanger the populous).
Say what you want where you want, so long as it’s on public property.
And everyone has their own definition of what hate speech is. I think it’s hypocritical for conservatives, though, to legislate morals on tv and then turn around and cry for free speech on radio.
Katy (#110): Ok, so I’ve come out already (don’t be fooled by the copycats who’ve apparently been posting under my nick recently) so I might as well say this.
Most of us don’t believe in the lies. We make them up and we propagate them. Why?
We get enjoyment out of the beauty (or, when necessary, crassness – just witness the likes of firehead, venus or jake) of our fundamentally flawed arguments that still manage to unbalance/disturb the opponent and obfuscate the truth we’ve never denied ourselves.
But don’t make the mistake of labeling all of us as right wingers. We are people who love to argue for the arguments sake. As someone pointed out earlier, very perceptively I might add, I twist and turn when I get opposed as if it is a game.
It’s a game to try to beat the truth with a lie. Personally, I’m a former left-of-center turned right-of-center. I just couldn’t stand the disgusting smugness, self-righteousness and saving-the-world nonsense of the left anymore. It’s just as appalling as the religious crap that get shoved down our throats in this country these days. To them it’s about power and the potential for rapture. To you it’s about the power of establishing a pie-in-the-sky egalitarian and pseudo-secular utopia – something that goes against the very grain of human nature.
It makes me just as sick as the flag waving religious bullshit of the neocon right does.
I think we are mostly people who hold allegiance to no-one. There might be GOP paid shills around, but most of us do it for the intellectual pleasure. I could as well pose as a more or less fanatic progressive here or on right wing blogs and as a matter of fact I’ve done it, but that’s boring. I know your points in and out (why did you think I could elicit such a response out of you here and on Raw Story before their blog implosion), yet I’d get banned in a few minutes on free republic or little green footballs.
I’ve got to hand it to you guys for letting the trolls run free – the ugly right doesn’t exhibit that weakness.
Yours lovingly,
April 26th, 2007 at 12:51 pmThe real Frank Matthews
Juan, I’m not armed. I don’t like guns.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:54 pmI don’t understand your post, though, in relation. I’m not suggesting the overthrow of this government. Simply, if we’re under the thumb of a truly oppressive government, one which rules by the gun itself, we should be able to take up arms against it. Anyone should.
Juan C,
I will say that all of the Democrats in both Houses of Congress use fear to get elected. That is well over 100.
Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Murtha, Kerry, Webb, etc, etc, etc.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:56 pmwilco,
I believe that the FCC rules for television and radio are pretty much the same. What you can’t say in radio, you can’t say on television.
furthermore, I think it was liberals who called for Imus to resign on televion, not conservatives. This shows me that it is Liberals that want to regulate television.
I do believe, though, that the FCC rules for paid television are different from the rules for free television. Same as in radio, paid vs. unpaid.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:59 pmI’ve got to hand it to you guys for letting the trolls run free – the ugly right doesn’t exhibit that weakness.
Comment by Frank Matthews
So Frank slams progressives for being too weak-kneed to censor comments? A true American, who believes in freedom of speech?
Yeah, right.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:00 pmValiant:
I wasnt aware of those commercials. Probably, yes. Both sides have propaganda. The thing is that the right wing DID enslave black people. They were not lying about it, at least. 9/11 happened under BUSH, not under a Democrat administration, so it seems an absurdity that with a republican admin US would be safer.
which we had already seen what disaster it had and has made in Cuba.Comment by Valiantthehater
mmmm…after 40+ years of economic embargo? I would like to see the US with that embargo. It would look like some PARTS of the US right now.
Whats wrong with Soviet Nuclear Heads in Cuba? You have like 5000, why Cuba cant some? Or Iran? Whats the problem? Fermi in Los Alamos began all this, why should we stop there? Besides, whats the fear? The US is the only country in the world to ever used one…and two.
Saudi Arabia was attacked by Iraq? Saudi Arabia was occupied by the US in Gulf War I and thats what pissed OBL off. You dont get to put soldiers in the Mecca and Medina without a fight against Wahabbites. Kuwait´s invasion by Iraq was made with all the allowance of Bush I. What was the surprise, then?
NIcaragua, one question, do you agree with the killing of thousands of peasants and farmers in order to get rid of terrorism? Please, think your answer, if you say yes, no matter what you are a murderer advocator and I will discredit whatever opinion you say for that single reason.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:02 pmComment by Frank Matthews — April 26, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Drop dead.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:02 pmRice is having problems with the English language. She is claiming that she has already “answered” all the questions on the yellowcake forgery document. If she would have answered the questions then we would already know how the false claim made its way into the State of the Union speech.
I am sure she meant to say that she has responded to all the questions and this response is all you are going to get. “I don’t recall” is never an answer, it is always just a response — more often than not a false response at that.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pmI forgot to reinforce the question, Valiant. What do you mean by left?
Have to go. Will get back at night.
Wilco: If I came to you agressively I apologize.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pmI will say that all of the Democrats in both Houses of Congress use fear to get elected. That is well over 100.
Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Murtha, Kerry, Webb, etc, etc, etc.
Comment by Valiantthehater
Again, with no supporting material; how predictable.
“This shows me that it is Liberals that want to regulate television.”
If by regulate, you mean reinstate the fairness doctrine, then yes. Rush shouldn’t be able to lie on the airwaves without giving equal time to an opposing viewpoint, to give listeners some balance. What’s so undemocratic about that?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:04 pmHow about Al Sharpton saying that if Republicans are elected to power, blacks will be enslaved again. Is this not fear?
How about posting actual quotes? Or is that too hard to do?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:06 pmRice’s refusal to comply with a Subpoena canlead to contempt of Congress charges.
And I noticed someone said that the USAs enforce the subpoenas
April 26th, 2007 at 1:17 pmWrong
The Congressional Seargent of Arms enforces and arrests for contempt citations.
Katy how would you go about exercising your 3rd Amendment RIGHT (No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law) if you didn’t have a gun?
just sayin’…
Comment by Saywho — April 26, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
wow… a real scaredy cat, huh… sorry, but that’s just how it struck me…
you were respectful and nice, so that’s the worst i allowed myself to get…
but, really, why ever would i need a gun?
should such a scenario arrive, i doubt my weapon would prevent an occupation of my home – especially after having been shot as soon as i brandished such a weapon… get real…
but, did you notice that PROVISION?: “in a manner to be prescribed by law” …
i don’t want to debate the 2nd amendment… the issue for me is that i think weapons NEED to be REGULATED and those who argue against that are selfish and/or wacko… but you never did verify your statement that kucinich was “against the 2nd amendment”… and so i’m done with you…
April 26th, 2007 at 1:33 pm…
Yours lovingly,
The real Frank Matthews
Comment by Frank Matthews — April 26, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
There’s no intellectual joy to be had in propogating harmful lies, only a sycophant would think so.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:40 pmComment by Saywho — April 26, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
shoot at the soldiers, i’m sure that would work. they wouldn’t come back with help, i’m sure.
they would just say, ‘ooh, better stay away from there, that’s saywho’s house. he has guns. we better not bring our tanks and rocket launchers.’
pretty silly to think that if it comes time to fight soldiers who want to sleep in your house, it will be your job to enforce the 3rd amendment.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:55 pmcontempt of congress: not sure if its all accurate but basic jist..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
April 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pmI’ve got to hand it to you guys for letting the trolls run free – the ugly right doesn’t exhibit that weakness.
Comment by Frank Matthews
So Frank slams progressives for being too weak-kneed to censor comments? A true American, who believes in freedom of speech?
Yeah, right.
Comment by barfly — April 26, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
ha! … well, i didn’t get THAT from the comment, but plenty of condescending patter… why would anyone brag about being a trooll?…
April 26th, 2007 at 2:07 pm…
Comment by katy — April 26, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
First insults and disrespect…
Then you can’t debate the Bill of Rights and beyond that I brought up the 3rd Amendment as an example of something worth fighting for, namely your home. You insist that should that day come you will not fight and comply with the invader!
You mentioned, “In a manner prescribed by law” and that means that if the nation was invaded or there was a split the government can commandeer your home. This would not be a 3rd Amendment violation and was not within the scope of my example.
You go on to claim that debating the 2nd Amendment is not something you want to do, however you in fact brought yourself into and created the debate several posts ago. So now you run away while yelling, “The issue for me is that I think weapons NEED to be REGULATED and those who argue against that are selfish and/or wacko!” Here in this thread and in others I told the truth and stated that guns are in fact regulated. I happen to be against any bans that infringe my 2nd and 4th Amendment Rights. At the same time I agree that we have more than enough laws to regulate the 2nd Amendment.
Lastly you said that I didn’t verify my claim about DK. LOL well I don’t have to, you can read about it on his own site. “Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill” is what it says there and that is against the 2nd Amendment. The two bills he is attempting to get through the house are HR 808 and HR 676. He has come out many times as being anti-gun and this is one of the core reasons that he will not get elected.
Now Katy on a personal note, you are creeping into the red for me. Your views are socialistic when you rely on the government to protect you. As far as you know I may be a police officer and carry a weapon or a soldier doing his duty. I happen to be a citizen and require a government that fears the citizenry rather than being like you and fearful of the government. You trust police and soldiers with your life but in reality they are never around when you need them.
According to people like you police are more trustworthy than the citizens who pay them. Soldiers are somehow more qualified to defend us when in fact we law abiding citizens are the ones who become the soldiers. In reality the citizens who obey the laws are made to be DISARMED VICTEMS by repression of the 2nd Amendment. People like you would rather kiss the ass of a dictator rather than fight for liberty. You are a slave in the making!
April 26th, 2007 at 2:25 pmComment by pete — April 26, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Rather than attempting to insult me why don’t you read the Constitution? I know the Constitution by heart and I also know the intent of the 3rd Amendment. Should you be for a weapons ban, than I would or may be out gunned by an invader. You like Katy, would see me as another DISARMED VICTEM.
I can’t get into the odds of engaging a trained soldier but in the end the Colonists were able to organize and defeat the British Army using their guns and wits! If we submit to a weapons ban then there will be no resistance against an enemy that was foreign or domestic.
So you can keep on going with the snide comments and your what ifs but without a gun you are a DISARMED VICTEM rather than an ARMED CITIZEN defending the Constitution and LIBERTY.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:46 pmComment by Saywho — April 26, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
you’re already a disarmed victim, you just don’t know it yet.
in 1776, civilian weapons were about equal to military weapons. in 2007, that is not the case.
you might consider how the confederates performed in 1861-65. they had similar weapons, better leadership, higher morale, and home field advantage. what happened there?
April 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pmAnd finally: A GOP delegate in Utah “has submitted a resolution equating illegal immigration to ‘Satan’s plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion‘ for debate at Saturday’s Utah County Republican Party Convention.â€
Sort of like the stealth invasion of the white man in the 1600’s.
Signed,
April 26th, 2007 at 3:31 pmAmerican Indian
Comment by pete — April 26, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Now you want to debate the Civil War? Here is another What If post on your part. More than that the Civil War at no time called for a gun ban since it was understood that the 2nd Amendment was to be taken literally.
Again:
If you pick Kucinich: “Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the billâ€
The two bills he is attempting to get through the house are HR 808 and HR 676.
Gun bans will in fact NOT prevent criminals from doing crimes with guns. A gun ban, be it for a given type of gun is a direct violation of both the 2nd and 4th Amendments of the US Constitution. Banning weapons will in fact prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves or their homes.
In the last election and in the coming election the law abiding citizens that exercise our 2nd Amendment Right did not and will not vote for this individual who is intent on violating the US Constitution by banning our ARMS.
Why don’t you talk about the American Indians now? They messed up Custer pretty good with very few firearms.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:56 pm#139 Valiantthehater
I will say that all of the Democrats in both Houses of Congress use fear to get elected. That is well over 100.
Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Murtha, Kerry, Webb, etc, etc, etc.
Yeah, I remember them all saying “If you vote for a Republican, the terrorists will attack America.” /sarc
The 2002 election was all about fear. Just to refresh your failing memory:
The Nation: Vote for Bush or Die
As the 2002 midterm elections neared, White House political director Ken Mehlman developed a secret PowerPoint presentation–which was made public after being dropped in a park–urging Republican candidates to highlight fears of future terrorist attacks. In the most outrageous example, Georgia Senate candidate Saxby Chambliss, who had avoided service in Vietnam, ran campaign commercials drawing parallels between triple amputee Vietnam War veteran Max Cleland and Osama bin Laden.
And don’t forget that Tom Ridge himself admitted that the color-coded terrorist threat warnings were used for political purposes. Wasn’t it funny how there were so many warnings around the time of the Democratic National Convention and none during the Republican one?
Let me know if you want me to start posting a series of examples like these, because I can dig up a lot more (i.e. Ashcroft and phony terrorist capture).
There is no comparison between the fear-mongering by the GOP and anything that you dare to spin as fear-mongering on the part of the Dems. You’re either dishonest or deluded if you say there is.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:03 pmComment by Saywho — April 26, 2007 @ 10:26 am
It’s called Oceania. Someone wrote a book about it.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:43 pmComment by Saywho — April 26, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
i don’t want to debate the civil war. i want you to think about the fleeting possibility that your guns will prevent the tyranny of which washington warned. obviously, in washington’s time, citizens could repel invaders and overlords. they had just done it.
as time has passed, military arms have become more sophisticated and powerful. by the time of the civil war weapons had advanced greatly from washington’s time – the horrific casualties are testament to that fact. the difference between the united states and the confederates was the industrial capacity of the united states. the north had more soldiers who had more newer and better weapons; for the most part, the south had the same rifles in 1865 as they had in 1861. as you say, there was no weapons ban, and southerners had their many civilian weapons from which to draw. yet, the north prevailed.
the united states army is armored, mechanized and air-suported. if the army comes into your neighborhood, you may as well throw rocks at them as use your guns, and i include ar-15s and ak-47s in that assessment.
custer. ok. custer’s men’s rifles were inferior to those of the sioux and cheyenne. the soldiers had single-shot trapdoor springfield rifles that were prone to jamming the too-soft copper casings. many of custer’s men were found still holding their jammed weapons, evidently killed while trying to clear the jams with their knives. it is believed that almost all of the natives were armed, and that many had lever-action repeaters (henrys, winchesters and remingtons, i think).
custer was also massively outnumbered and his men were tired. by contrast. the natives’ morale was high and they were rested. some evidence asserts the soldiers panicked and scattered, further squandering whatever slim advantage they might have had. i must also observe that although the natives won this battle, they lost the war.
be careful wth those guns, you are 22 times more likely to kill yourself or a guest than an intruder.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:47 pmComment by Saywho — April 26, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
i just looked it up. natives: 134 guns, custer: 81.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:48 pm“Seen “Inconvinient Truthâ€? It is all full of fear. It uses fear and emtion to get people to act to the so called Global Warming.”
And how is this an example of using fear to troll for votes? The science is overwhelming, and the fact that you do not cite specifics shows the paucity of your argument.
“Heard Democrats speack about Bush? All they say how he and Republicans need to go because they have trampled all over the Constitiution and how we are next. Once again, fear. ”
Well, they have, so it’s not just a scare story. Bush broke the law, by wiretapping all Americans. They have also suspended habeus corpus – a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence. So, you’ll have to come up with real examples, not just paraphrased pap.
For every three Republicans that you give me using fear, I can give you 100 Democrats using fear.
Comment by Valiantthehater
April 26th, 2007 at 4:54 pmComment by Valiantthehater
I’m still waiting for one example. What’s the matter? Can’t you dig up a quote? It shouldn’t be too hard, if dems and liberals are as bad as you say.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:56 pmWell, gee. Uh, thanks? I don’t know the Constitution by heart, but I can look it up on “the internets.” And, I can’t, for the life of me, figure out the intent behind the prohibition against quartering a soldier in my home during peace time has anything to do with a weapons ban.
Do you mean, if the Army wants my home in peace time, I have the right to use weapons to resist?
Do you happen to have any Supreme Court opinions on this? I would be interesting in learning about this novel intent behind the 3rd Amendment.
~mildly amused at the ignornace of “saywho”…
April 26th, 2007 at 4:58 pmIt’s called Oceania. Someone wrote a book about it.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — April 26, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
So why are you so cryptic? Many people realize that our world parallels the world in 1984 (the book). So many here want utopia but most of that is wishful thinking at best. Be they thought police or BATF agents giving an inch always costs miles.
I posted about the Amero-Dollar and all the related to suggest that while we are looking at Waxman and congress and while we see no enforcement of illegal immigration there is an invasion taking place. What party you like is not the question in this. The nation is being destroyed from inside and outside. Our unions are already destroyed and in reality both parties have broken Excalibur!
April 26th, 2007 at 5:05 pm~mildly amused at the ignorance(SIC) of “saywhoâ€â€¦
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — April 26, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
I was clear in my points. Yes, the 2nd Amendment permits the ownership and use of ARMS. I’m sure that as an Army Squad from Mexico enters your home in California that using force to counter force is well within my rights and yours. I doubt that I will be shouting, “You Mexicans are violating my 3rd Amendment Rights.” I will instead be loading and shooting unless they get me first.
Any way you’re a smart assed person here on TP and you are likely to be a socialist like many others. Citizens can protect themselves and many do. The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to organize groups or individually protect themselves from enemies. The 3rd Amendment establishes conditions for war time and piece time regarding the possession and use of your home by standing armies. The British occupied large areas during the revolution and as a US Citizen I was within our rights to fire into them. Survival is another matter.
I’m pretty sure that you support illegal immigration and gun bans if what I read from you is correct. Anti-Constitutional behavior is almost as bad as a 3rd Bush term would be!
April 26th, 2007 at 5:26 pmThe British occupied large areas during the revolution and as a US Citizen I was within our rights to fire into them. Survival is another matter.
should be…
April 26th, 2007 at 5:30 pmThe British occupied large areas during the revolution and as a US Citizen I was would be within my rights to fire into them. Survival is another matter.
OK I have no idea why that is happening when I post?? one more time…
April 26th, 2007 at 5:31 pmThe British occupied large areas during the revolution and as a US Citizen I would be within my rights to fire into them.
We realize that you’re eager to shoot anyone, Saywho.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:56 amComment by Evil Spaniard — April 27, 2007 @ 6:56 am
“We” as in “you” realize something? You are speaking for everyone I assume or is it that “you” assume that you are speaking for the masses? Do you have any idea how many legal gun owners are in the USA? You are inferring that I want to do something violent with a gun to another human. I have maintained that any weapons ban in the US would be a violation of my 2nd & 4th Amendment Rights and would lessen my ability to realize my 1st & 3rd Amendment Rights since I would no longer be able to defend myself or family from crime, invasion or a tyrant.
I have made my feelings about Dennis Kucinich crystal clear. I stated that if he reversed himself on guns then he would be a more viable candidate as president. The 2nd Amendment happens to be the most cherished and protected Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Anyone that would attempt to remove or limit my ability to protect myself, my family, my home, my town, etc. is relegated to being a socialist or fascist. The freedom haters out there that want to trade liberty for safety live in a utopian dream world and when they wake up they will find that they are nothing more than slaves!
Good day comrade Evil!
April 27th, 2007 at 1:05 pm