ThinkFast: November 21, 2007
ThinkFast: November 21, 2007
Fearing that President Bush would again use a Congressional recess to install executive branch appointees without Senate confirmation, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) gaveled in a 30-second Senate session yesterday. “This is an exercise in protecting the Constitution and our constitutional process,” Webb said.
MoveOn.org Civic Action is taking on Facebook for infringing user privacy. “MoveOn is objecting to a new advertising technique that Facebook announced a few weeks ago that posts members’ purchases and activities on other websites in their Facebook profiles.” Take action here.
“Americans enter the holiday season in a dark mood, with economic worries, security fears and a lack of confidence in government fueling growing pessimism, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.” The number of Americans who believe the country is on the right track fell from 26 percent to 24 percent in the last month, with about two-thirds believing it is headed in the wrong direction.
Two groups of scientists yesterday revealed that they “succeeded in turning human skin cells into cells that are very similar — but not identical — to embryonic stem cells.” Experts, however, cautioned that it is unclear “whether the new cells will be as effective as conventional embryonic stem cells may prove to be against certain disease.”
Glenn Greenwald sets Joe Klein straight on his factual misrepresentations about FISA reform. Klein writes in Time that Democrats’ proposal fix to FISA would require “every foreign-terrorist target’s calls to be approved by the FISA court.” Greenwald responds, “Everyone — from Russ Feingold to the ACLU — agreed that FISA never intended to require warrants for foreign-to-foreign calls that have nothing to do with U.S. citizens.”
The Supreme Court has agreed to “review an appeals court decision that struck down a 31-year-old Washington D.C., ban on pistols.” “The court’s examination of the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years carries broad implications for gun-control measures locally and across the country.”
“The conflict in Afghanistan has reached ‘crisis proportions,’ with the resurgent Taliban present in 54 percent of the country and “closing in on Kabul,” according to the Senlis Council, an independent think tank. To “prevent NATO’s defeat at the hands of the Taliban, a rejuvenated ‘coalition of the willing’ is needed,” the report said.
$99: Price of crude oil, a new record. “The market is now really looking at $100 a barrel as the next target to hit,” said Victor Shum, an energy analyst in Singapore.
And finally: The Washington Examiner asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino “what she likes to make for Thanksgiving.” Her response? “Glass of red wine. Directions: 1. Buy bottle of red wine, 2. Un-cork the bottle, 3. Pour wine into glass.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
And finally: The Washington Examiner asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino “what she likes to make for Thanksgiving.†Her response? “Glass of red wine. Directions: 1. Buy bottle of red wine, 2. Un-cork the bottle, 3. Pour wine into glass.â€
But she makes such sweet lies–feed us some more of those, Dana!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:05 am“the Senlis Council, an independent think tank”
Independent of what?
Who are the principals?
Who funds them?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:09 amTwo groups of scientists yesterday revealed that they “succeeded in turning human skin cells into cells that are very similar — but not identical — to embryonic stem cells.†Experts, however, cautioned that it is unclear “whether the new cells will be as effective as conventional embryonic stem cells may prove to be against certain disease.â€
This is indeed heartening–but I sure hope it pans out as an effective stem cell source. It will surely become argument #1 in the anti-embryonic stem cell research arsenal.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:10 amSounds like Dana enjoys cooking about as much as I do. Only instead of the wine, I go for the chocolate.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:10 amThey cut Dana Perino off and didn’t let her finish.
4. Sit alone in the dark and think to myself, “What the f&ck was I thinking? These people are insane!”
November 21st, 2007 at 9:11 amTo “prevent NATO’s defeat at the hands of the Taliban, a rejuvenated ‘coalition of the willing’ is needed,†the report said.
—————————————————
Sounds like the Taliban is almost back at the level it was pre-9/11. Unfortunately, a ‘coalition of the willing’ will be difficult to put together — rejuvenated, or even just dragging their butts. We might have had units if we hadn’t exhausted them all in Iraq, and we might have even had cooperation from other nations if we hadn’t squandered every last bit of world-wide good will we had.
Way to go, Bushie.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:13 amJust an idea…
Tomorrow, when you’re spending time with your family why not use the opportunity to make a call to your Senators and Congressperson(s) and tell them to stop funding the Iraq occupation. They won’t be in their office, but you can leave a message on their voice mail.
Show your family how quick and easy it is. The call is free. The White House Operator will answer. Ask her/him to connect you to the appropriate office:
1-800-828-0498
1-800-614-2803
1-800-459-1887
Surely you can find 5 minutes (during halftime of the football game) to call.
A smart thing to mention when leaving a message for your representatives is that you’re having a big discussion about the Iraq war/occupation with your family this Thanksgiving and you all agree it must come to an end immediately.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:13 amWebb is still da’ man!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:13 amDoes somebody win a prize when oil hits $100 a barrel? Oh, silly me — the oil companies. They’ll probably have balloons and confetti.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:14 amAnd finally… Barack Obama smoked drugs!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:17 amNeil Diamond revealed his inspiration for the song, “Sweet Caroline”: Caroline Kennedy.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:18 amWhat are lefties to do when the Supreme Court finally declares we Americans have a right to own and use guns once and for all?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:18 amThe number of Americans who believe the country is on the right track fell from 26 percent to 24 percent in the last month, with about two-thirds believing it is headed in the wrong direction.
Interesting, that is pretty much the same as the number of people who think that Busharruf is doing a good job.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:18 amJust an idea…
Tomorrow, when you’re spending time with your family why not use the opportunity to make a call to your Senators and Congressperson(s) and tell them to stop funding the Iraq occupation. They won’t be in their office, but you can leave a message on their voice mail.
Show your family how quick and easy it is. The call is free. The White House Operator will answer. Ask her/him to connect you to the appropriate office:
1-800-828-0498
1-800-614-2803
1-800-459-1887
Surely you can find 5 minutes (during halftime of the football game) to call.
A smart thing to mention when leaving a message for your representatives is that you’re having a big discussion about the Iraq war/occupation with your family this Thanksgiving and you all agree it must come to an end immediately.
Yeah… That’s what I want to do on my day off.
And what a wussy way to do it… Call and leave a message? Why not call and talk to someone on another day? How passive of you.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:20 amGlenn Greenwald sets Joe Klein straight on his factual misrepresentations about FISA reform.
Now we are calling lies “factual misrepresentations”. What in the hell is wrong with calling a lie a lie?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:20 amsounds like TIME needs GLENN GREENWALD to balance joe klein…
perhaps, probably, too late… the damage done…
November 21st, 2007 at 9:22 amand THAT’s the object… not?
.
#10…You seem concerned that Obama smoked some pot–you have posted that on every thread since yesterday. I did. Everyone in my high school did. Most of the people I knew in college did. And we grew out of it. You don’t seem concerned that our current president and your idol did more cocaine in his life than most supermodels.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:22 amRegarding telephone surveillance — why are we spending so much time, resources, and debate over the warrantless telephone surveillance issue when terrorists, knowing they are being monitored on land lines and permanent cell lines, are using disposable pre-paid phones that are virtually untraceable?
I mean — if you were plotting an act of violence against the United States, wouldn’t you figure you were being monitored and take appropriate action? Just common sense.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:23 am$99: Price of crude oil, a new record. “The market is now really looking at $100 a barrel as the next target to hit,†said Victor Shum, an energy analyst in Singapore.
The way this is worded makes it sound like a good thing that oil reaching $100 a barrel is a good thing. What in the hell happened to our cheap oil? I thought that was why we invaded Iraq. Are we ever going to see any kind of a return on our investment of a trillion dollars?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:23 amUS Urged to Spend More on Afghan Aid
November 21st, 2007 at 9:26 amBy JASON STRAZIUSO – 19 hours ago
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — U.S. spending on aid work in Afghanistan is only a fraction of what the American military spends, and too much of the aid money pays the high salaries of expatriate employees, an international aid agency said Tuesday.
[...]
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8dGftYb0s4XWdUMRdIVs3vh1CKAD8T1INUO0
“the Senlis Council, an independent think tankâ€
Independent of what?
Who are the principals?
Who funds them?
Comment by celtic cynic
If you want an answer to those questions, why not do a little research on your own. You have a tool, it’s called “the Google”.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:27 am#10…You seem concerned that Obama smoked some pot–you have posted that on every thread since yesterday. I did. Everyone in my high school did. Most of the people I knew in college did. And we grew out of it. You don’t seem concerned that our current president and your idol did more cocaine in his life than most supermodels.
You ma’am, are an idiot. My idol, the president? Of what country, because I certainly do not idolize bush. Congratulations on “smoking drugs” you retard. I used the phrase ’smoked drugs’ because I find it amusing, not because I give a flying eff about Obama experimenting with drugs. I do love how you rationalize it though. Precisely why I’ve brought it up over and over. Even if TP posted a story about it, most people would commend him and say they did too. You are pathetic and shall waste no more of my time.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:27 amI love that 30 second session.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:29 am21. I see we have a new troll tactic… pretend to be a liberal, while still dishing out the same troll crap. Hits–Mr.P is that you?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:30 amYou are pathetic and shall waste no more of my time.
Comment by Poop on Republicans — November 21, 2007 @ 9:27 am
So you’ll stop spamming threads with “Obama smoked drugs” crap?
Good!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:32 amwell, at least poop calls it what it is…
obama wrote about his drug use in his book…
November 21st, 2007 at 9:32 amit’s not news, for sure…
Yeah… That’s what I want to do on my day off.
And what a wussy way to do it… Call and leave a message? Why not call and talk to someone on another day? How passive of you.
Comment by Poop on Republicans — November 21, 2007 @ 9:20 am
I believe everybody should be calling their representatives every day. That’s a no-brainer at this point.
Many times when I call my reps. no one answers. I leave a message on their voicemail. The benefit to this is you usually have a full minute to express your complaint. When you talk to a staffer they usually only give you a few seconds.
The reason I suggest making a call tomorrow with your family is obvious. Because its a great opportunity to show people who may not be politically active how they can start. And how easy it is.
I believe also, that if our reps. know we’re discussing the Iraq war/occupation on Thanksgiving, and making calls on Thanksgiving…we’re very serious. And its not just us, its our entire family that’s pissed. That’s a very powerful message.
If you need to watch the entire halftime show, and can’t afford even two minutes to make a call, shame on you.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:32 amWhat are lefties to do when the Supreme Court finally declares we Americans have a right to own and use guns once and for all?
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 21, 2007 @ 9:18 am
It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this issue. Support or opposition for “gun control” is a rather long line between two extreme interpretations of the second amendment, neither of which is advocated by anyone I know.
Which extremes are these?
First, the wording in the amendment: “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.”
Extreme One: No deadly weapon may be privately owned by a citizen. The “militia” being referred to is our National Guard, and they may own weapons. This is an extreme viewpoint, obviously — and very few people take this position.
Extreme Two: The right to keep and bear arms means that anybody can own any weapons with no restrictions. Registration would be a restriction. Guns withheld from the mentally ill or criminals would be a restriction. Telling a rich guy he can’t build a missile silo on his land with a nuclear warhead would be a restriction. This is also an extreme viewpoint, one that only a real crackpot would support.
All the rest of us fall somewhere on this long line between the two extremes as far as our position on gun control.
It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this. If they make any significant changes to the law in Washington, DC, it will be interesting to see if gun-related crime goes up or down as a result.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:34 am21. I see we have a new troll tactic… pretend to be a liberal, while still dishing out the same troll crap. Hits–Mr.P is that you?
Yeah, I’m Mr.P… Friggin’ moron. And that’s not a new tactic, it’s been around for as long as the internets. I however, am not using that tactic. I am speaking my mind. I never once stated that I was concerned that Obama smoked drugs. Clearly your admitted usage of drugs in your developmental years has stunted some part of your brain. Thank you for the amusement, and feel free to keep calling me a troll, for which I am not. For all I know, you are a troll baiting me right now into a r-tard e-fight.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:35 amComment by Menehune
What troll crap?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:35 amThe initial post was sarcastic, then he was attacked, he replied (also an attack, yes), and now he’s being attacked again!
Sometimes “progressive” isn’t so progressive….
People here turn on their own quickly.
What are lefties to do when the Supreme Court finally declares we Americans have a right to own and use guns once and for all?
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 21, 2007 @ 9:18 am
Wait for crime rates and accidental handgun deaths to increase and let fly a flurry of “we told you so’s”
November 21st, 2007 at 9:36 amThe number is not all that surprising, considering that Congress’ approval rating is somwhere between 11% and 19% depending on the poll. Democrats generally think that the country is headed in the wrong direction with Bush heading the Executive branch, and Republicans generally think that the country is headed in the wrong direction with Democrats running the Legislative branch.
Comment by cold_hard_left
You can interpret the numbers any way you want loon. But a recent poll showed that the American public approved of the job the Democrats in Congress were doing at a much higher level than the job that the Republicans are doing. The Democrats are mad at Congress for not doing enough to rein in Bully Boy Bush and the Republicans are mad at Congress because the Democrats are finally doing some oversight, something that was missing for the first 6 years of Bush’s rule.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:36 amthat facebook thing is fairly outrageous…
how did they come to the conclusion that was a good idea?
another good reason to never to any “business” online…
November 21st, 2007 at 9:37 ammy kids think i’m silly for being paranoid about it…
i worry about their ambivalence…
…
I believe everybody should be calling their representatives every day. That’s a no-brainer at this point.
Many times when I call my reps. no one answers. I leave a message on their voicemail. The benefit to this is you usually have a full minute to express your complaint. When you talk to a staffer they usually only give you a few seconds.
The reason I suggest making a call tomorrow with your family is obvious. Because its a great opportunity to show people who may not be politically active how they can start. And how easy it is.
I believe also, that if our reps. know we’re discussing the Iraq war/occupation on Thanksgiving, and making calls on Thanksgiving…we’re very serious. And its not just us, its our entire family that’s pissed. That’s a very powerful message.
If you need to watch the entire halftime show, and can’t afford even two minutes to make a call, shame on you.
Fair enough. I apologize for jumping on you. Menehen or whatever got me all riled up and I took it out on you.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:37 amSometimes “progressive†isn’t so progressive….
People here turn on their own quickly.
Comment by Wilco
Why don’t you wait and see what this one turns out to be? I suspect that Menehune is right about this one being a troll. If this person is a “progressive”, why does he find it necessary to spam threads with his “Obama smoking drugs” comment?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:39 amSo you’ll stop spamming threads with “Obama smoked drugs†crap?
Good!
Spam this. Obama Smoked Drugs!!! OMGWTFBBQ!!!1one
Why don’t you stop spamming with your smug, holier than thou attitude?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:39 amI posted ONCE in THREE SEPARATE THREADS about Obama smoking drugs. NO SPAM, just comments about his drug use and how I found it amusing and how I find the phrase “SMOKE DRUGS” amusing. If I couldn’t have used the phrase I wouldn’t have posted about it. I don’t do drugs, and never have. I don’t really care if Obama, Bush, Clinton, or whoever the eff else used drugs was weak enough to give in to the temptation at some point in their lives.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:41 amIn a perfect world, the supreme court would come back and say: members of the National Guard have a RIGHT to keep firearms in their homes for times of national emergency. The rest of you are allowed to have weapons but their specifics and use are subject to jurisdictional regulation.
But…in another RATS decision, we’ll get something along the lines that the government is not allowed to interfere or inhibit the posession of firearms in until a crime has been committed.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:42 amI’m going to giv him the benefit of the doubt. The “Obama smoking drugs” comment isn’t meant as an attack on Obama, again it’s an old admission by the man himself. Clearly, no one cares if anyone brings it up again. It’s old news. POR explained himself and that should be good enough.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:44 amNo coverage of Bush supporting Musharraf and saying that “he hasn’t crossed the line”?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112002304.html?hpid=topnews
November 21st, 2007 at 9:46 amSpam this. Obama Smoked Drugs!!! OMGWTFBBQ!!!1one
Comment by Poop on Republicans — November 21, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Go back to GBS.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:47 am#21 Poop on Republicans – responding to earlier posts
Now that we’ve had the crack head Shrub in office (who also dodged a DUI with Gonzo’s help), it seems to me that the Neocons have lost any edge in talking about smoking pot. Although Shrub does make a good argument against the effects of drugs just by his existance.
Oddly enough, I actually made it through the 60s and 70s.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:47 amWhat are lefties to do when the Supreme Court finally declares we Americans have a right to own and use guns once and for all?
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 21, 2007 @ 9:18 am
Well a good start would be to go hunting for politicians who piss them off.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:47 amIn a perfect world, the supreme court would come back and say: members of the National Guard have a RIGHT to keep firearms in their homes for times of national emergency. The rest of you are allowed to have weapons but their specifics and use are subject to jurisdictional regulation.
Comment by Menehune
Well put. Guns should be legal but regulated. Governmental ban on possession of all firearms goes against the very fundamentals of “freedom.”
November 21st, 2007 at 9:48 amNow, if a community votes on an all-out ban, then so be it. That’s democracy in action!
Wait for crime rates and accidental handgun deaths to increase and let fly a flurry of “we told you so’sâ€
Comment by toasterhead
Considering the fact that a gun in a home is 10 times more likely to be used to kill someone in the home, either accidentally or on purpose, why would anyone want to have one in their home? If the person breaking into your home has a gun, then you are just as likely to be shot if you try to pull a gun on them. If they don’t have a gun, a good old frying pan works wonders on the bad guys.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:48 amHey Poop. No one cares. “Smoking Drugs” maybe hysterical to you. Fine. Those of us who inhaled on occasion (and LIKED it) are weak. But, boy did we have fun! Welcome to the party.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:49 amSounds like the Taliban is almost back at the level it was pre-9/11.
Comment by missmolly — November 21, 2007 @ 9:13 am
Does this mean Dick Cheney is going to start negatiating with them again to let Unocal build that pipeline from the Caspian Sea?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:49 amPOR explained himself and that should be good enough.
Comment by Wilco
He didn’t explain why he is spamming threads with this, considering the fact that he claims to be a “progressive”.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:51 amWe can look at the upcoming mood of the holiday season a couple of ways. First, we have been in a rather dark mood for so long that people may WANT to celebrate a little bit — even though their wages are down and the price of gas is keeping them from traveling as much.
So what will people spend on Christmas this year? I looked up the latest consumer confidence stats from Gallup — http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer2.htm
This year, 27% think economic conditions are excellent or good, and 72% rate them fair or poor.
Last year at this time, 40% thought economic conditions were excellent or good, and 59% rated them fair or poor.
People will spend more when they believe in the economy — and they save more when they get skittish about possible lean times ahead.
Bottom line — I see a lot of homemade gifts and modest but happy family celebrations this season.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:52 amPOR explained himself and that should be good enough.
Comment by Wilco
You’re damaging the name of the greatest American rock group when pandering to trolls.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:54 amI would like to see more coverage of this:
November 21st, 2007 at 9:54 am
If I couldn’t have used the phrase I wouldn’t have posted about it. I don’t do drugs, and never have. I don’t really care if Obama, Bush, Clinton, or whoever the eff else used drugs was weak enough to give in to the temptation at some point in their lives.
Comment by Poop on Republicans
So you are the good, strong person and any one who smoked pot while they were in college are “weak”. And yes, saying the same thing on three threads, especially when it isn’t relevant, is spamming in most people’s books. I don’t know whether or not you are a troll. I will reserve judgment until after you have posted on some other subjects. But, I suspect you are the new breed of RNC trolls that come here saying they are a progressive and then they either post something outrageous or make subtle digs at the progressives.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:55 ambilbo, if you go back thru his posts, he addressed that specifically.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:56 amBut why the sensitivity? I could understand it if Obama’s drug use were an actual issue but it’s clearly not. It’s something he did a long time ago and admitted to. Why anyone should care whether someone else points it out now is beyond me.
…two-thirds believing it is headed in the wrong direction.
I tell ya the abyss is right over that thar precipice, stay the course!! – \/\/
Dana Perino “what she likes to make for Thanksgiving.†Her response? “Glass of red wine”
Oh my, now Daryll is gonna fix Danas liberal views.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:56 amDoes this mean Dick Cheney is going to start negatiating with them again to let Unocal build that pipeline from the Caspian Sea?
Comment by toasterhead — November 21, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Sounds about right. Cheney doesn’t really care about how tyrannical or despotic a regime is — just whether or not he can do business with them and make money.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:56 amBottom line — I see a lot of homemade gifts and modest but happy family celebrations this season.
Comment by missmolly
I see this as a good thing missmolly. This country would be a much better place if we could do away with the concept that we are “entitled” to have anything we want, just pull out that old credit card. Americans are up to their eyeballs in debt and when hard times come, they are going to be in real trouble, especially after the passage of the bankruptcy bill.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:57 am“First, the wording in the amendment: “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.â€
Extreme One: No deadly weapon may be privately owned by a citizen. The “militia†being referred to is our National Guard, and they may own weapons. This is an extreme viewpoint, obviously — and very few people take this position.
Comment by missmolly — November 21, 2007 @ 9:34 am
————————————-
First of all, I agree with you on 99.999% of your posts, so I want to get your feedback on this. I don’t understand why this is an “extreme” position. The wording of the amendment seems pretty clear to me. I’ve always thought that the “well regulated militia” line said it all. Whenever I point that out to a rightard, NONE of them know that line even exists. All they know is “the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms…”.
On a lighter note, do we have the right to arm bears? Maybe then the hunters will think twice about heading into the woods. (stolen from a Paul Westerberg song).
November 21st, 2007 at 9:58 amYou’re damaging the name of the greatest American rock group when pandering to trolls.
Comment by DieNowForPeace
You are absolutely right. Feel free to point that out to me if I ever do pander to trolls.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:58 amSounds about right. Cheney doesn’t really care about how tyrannical or despotic a regime is — just whether or not he can do business with them and make money.
Comment by missmolly — November 21, 2007 @ 9:56 am
These are the same people who supported Saddam Hussein in the1980s and then wanted to replace Saddam with a Pinochet-style government when Saddam’s antics grew tiresome.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:59 amGo back to GBS.
What’s GBS? I’m not familiar with your l33t mumbojumbo
November 21st, 2007 at 9:59 amIsn’t it great that if, on this site, you ever break ranks with extreme liberal viewpoints you are automatically labeled as the enemy and attacked as a troll?
No, wait, that’s not great at all.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:02 amCheney doesn’t really care about how tyrannical or despotic a regime is — just whether or not he can do business with them and make money.
Comment by missmolly
BINGO!
November 21st, 2007 at 10:02 am“You’re damaging the name of the greatest American rock group when pandering to trolls.”
Comment by DieNowForPeace
Oh, please. Little Feat could kick their ass, musically.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:03 amIsn’t it great that if, on this site, you ever break ranks with extreme liberal viewpoints you are automatically labeled as the enemy and attacked as a troll?
No, wait, that’s not great at all.
Comment by Poop on Republicans
Funny, and unfortunately too often true.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:03 amDid Scott McClellan say something?
Is that not a story?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:03 amNo, wait, that’s not great at all.
Comment by Poop on Republicans — November 21, 2007 @ 10:02 am
And it doesn’t happen. You’re currently labeled as the enemy because you spend your time here disrupting threads with unrelated blather. Stop acting like a troll and you won’t be labeled a troll.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:04 amIt’s time to reopen the Fitzgerald Grand Jury based on McClellan statements.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:05 amComment by barfly
I think the current lineup would give Little Feat a run for their money.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:05 amBut I do think Wilco at their best pale to the musical prowess of The Band on a mediocre day.
POR …
You’re damaging the name of the greatest American rock group …
Comment by DieNowForPeace — November 21, 2007 @ 9:54 am
huh???
November 21st, 2007 at 10:05 amwhat rock group are you referring to?
#53 Bilbo…I feel the same way. It was the “weak” part…I don’t think most people on this site would phrase it that way, especially in the context of saying that a thing which you perceive as “weakness” is not a thing that you would hold against a candidate. Anything that I perceive as weakness, I most certainly hold against candidates—Kyl/Lieberman anyone?
p.o.r–if you are truly a non-troll, I apologize quite sincerely.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:07 amAnd it doesn’t happen. You’re currently labeled as the enemy because you spend your time here disrupting threads with unrelated blather. Stop acting like a troll and you won’t be labeled a troll.
IT DOESN’T HAPPEN??? For as much time as you spend here, I thought you’d catch this happening all the time.. but you’re probably one of the perpetrators. I posted once in three different threads. I didn’t continue posting when everyone ignored my comments, THAT would be spamming (maybe my initial posts were spam, but they weren’t meant to harm anyone) I continued today because I was attacked unfairly.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:07 amComment by Vet — November 21, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Your interpretation of “well-regulated militia” is very similar to mine, and I fall closer to this “extreme” on the scale as well. The reason I call it “extreme” is that it is the position furthest away from the other extreme (which is REALLY extreme). My “no deadly weapons” extreme would eliminate ALL arms, including hunting and sporting rifles, archery supplies, slingshots, and anything else that could be considered a deadly weapon.
I don’t know anyone who wants to go that far. Most of the people I know who are weary of gun violence just want to see fewer guns out on the streets, fewer disputes settled with guns, fewer guns on television and in other parts of our culture, fewer guns being sold out of the trucks of thugs’ cars, fewer guns in the hands of unsupervised children, etc.
As far as arming bears, that WOULD make hunting more sporting, wouldn’t it?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:07 amIsn’t it great that if, on this site, you ever break ranks with extreme liberal viewpoints you are automatically labeled as the enemy and attacked as a troll?
Isn’t it great that if, in the GOP, you ever break ranks with the GOP you are automatically labeled as the enemy and attacked as a liberal then chunked under the bus without a course?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:07 amLittle Feat could kick their ass, musically.
Comment by barfly
I’m not sure. Never stayed awake through a single Little Feat tune…
And virtuoso musicianship does NOT always equate to great music.
Perhaps you’d prefer “greatest contemporary American rock group”?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:07 amIf that is o.k. with you too, that is fine — just be honest about it.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 21, 2007 @ 9:56 am
the hypocrisy of your statement, after the lies you have posted already this morning, deserves a little light. Honesty is not something you seem to be familiar with, so just shut it, moron.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:08 am“I think the current lineup would give Little Feat a run for their money.”
Now Little Feat is pretty much a spent force – but they have a monumental body of work that speaks for itself – and Lowell George smoked drugs.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:08 amhuh???
what rock group are you referring to?
Comment by katy — November 21, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Wilco. Maybe defined as alt-country. Very good, but it’s a ludicrous statement. Allman Brothers was and is the greatest American band. Period. End of story.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:09 amRoger I fully support the right to own and use guns. It’ll keep fascist types thinking twice about removing any other rights of Americans.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:09 amTomorrow, when you’re spending time with your family why not use the opportunity to make a call to your Senators and Congressperson(s) and tell them to stop funding the Iraq occupation. They won’t be in their office, but you can leave a message on their voice mail.
Show your family how quick and easy it is. The call is free. The White House Operator will answer. Ask her/him to connect you to the appropriate office:
1-800-828-0498
1-800-614-2803
1-800-459-1887
Surely you can find 5 minutes (during halftime of the football game) to call.
A smart thing to mention when leaving a message for your representatives is that you’re having a big discussion about the Iraq war/occupation with your family this Thanksgiving and you all agree it must come to an end immediately.
Yeah… That’s what I want to do on my day off.
And what a wussy way to do it… Call and leave a message? Why not call and talk to someone on another day? How passive of you.
Not PASSIVE at all. Put the friggin phone on speaker, and have everyone yell from the dinner table at the same time,
“GET THE Fu(k OUT OF IRAQ”
ALso, print these instruction out TODAY, and leave them in your offices for other workers.
Should be quite the earful on Monday, pffft, and you all thought they would be in on Friday. C’mon.
======
What are lefties to do when the Supreme Court finally declares we Americans have a right to own and use guns once and for all?
Comment by Roger_Roger
Just a thought…Sh00t you?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:10 amFormer Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee -CHL
Isnt that the way Bill Clinton started?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:10 amWhy try to trivialize it by saying that Obama “smoked pot?†He has also admitted to repeated cocaine use when he could “afford it.†If that is o.k. with you too, that is fine — just be honest about it.
Comment by cold_hard_left
Since all I have heard of is his admission to smoking pot, I would be interested in seeing a link to your proof that he has admitted to using cocaine. Put up or shut up.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:10 amBut I do think Wilco at their best pale to the musical prowess of The Band on a mediocre day.
Comment by Wilco — November 21, 2007 @ 10:05 am
A well-regulated militia is more in tune than The Band on their best day.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:10 am“I’m not sure. Never stayed awake through a single Little Feat tune…”
Try “Cold, Cold, Cold.” I doubt you’ll be able to sleep through it.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:11 amOh, and yes, I smoked dope. Quite a bit of it. I also used various psychedelic drugs, speed and coke, at various times in my misspent youth. I’m not particularly proud of that, nor am I even faintly ashamed. Purely valid recreational behavior.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:11 amTry “Cold, Cold, Cold.†I doubt you’ll be able to sleep through it.
Comment by barfly
My mistake. Forgot about that one. Greatness. Musta been the drugs I used on in college!
November 21st, 2007 at 10:13 am“Very good, but it’s a ludicrous statement. Allman Brothers was and is the greatest American band. Period. End of story.”
Comment by gummitch
They were – until Greg rolled over on Butch Trucks, at the behest of Cher.
After that, they sucked.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:13 amDoes anybody here find the right-wing view on arms control a bit hypocritical?
On one hand, they wave the second amendment around like a royal standard (at least the second half of it) when it comes to Americans owning guns.
On the other hand, they squeal like poked pigs when it comes to other nations having (or possibly getting) nuclear weapons, and they are ready to bomb Iran over this very issue.
Explanation, please?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:14 amEat a Peach. Got to love a band with that type of humor.
Great posts today. A well regulated Militia is one of the forgotten passages in the Constitution.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:16 amI finally understand the Constitution, and let me say it does NOT give us anything. We have ALL the power and rights, as it is stated, up front, inalienable rights. Now getting that out of the way, The second amendment DOES NOT give US anything, as we ALREADY have the right to bear arms, as it is one of those inalienable rights stated. The REASON for the second amendment was to EMPOWER the militias to carry arms. Yes, you heard it, it empower militias to carry arms. The right to carry arms as indidivuals is never restricted anywhere.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:16 amAnd I just came to this epiphany thinking of Habeus Corpus the other day. I had ALWAYS been a “the Constitution gives rights to indidivuals. HELLO. the Constitution DOES NOT GIE ANY RIGHTS. It only is a restrictive document, restricting the powers of government, it does not GRANT anything, as it never had the power to grant us anything. WE HAVE THE POWER to grant the Constitution the right to DICTATE which powers of ours, we wish to restrict.
Do you see the nuance?
We give the Constitution its powers, not the other way around.
It looks like it will soon be time for TP to step up its attacks on Mike Huckabee.
So you support a presidential candidate who worked to get a convicted rapist out of prison, said rapist then going on to rape again and then ultimately commit murder. Nice.
Huckabee could face hurdles from the past
Parole of rapist haunts campaign
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/14/huckabee_could_face_hurdles_from_the_past/
November 21st, 2007 at 10:16 amComment by missmolly — November 21, 2007 @ 10:07 am
—————————
Thanks for the feedback. I guess what bothers me is that such a high percentage of gun control opponents cite the 2nd amendment so freely, but have absolutely NO idea of it’s wording (well-regulated militia). All they know is what’s been beaten into us all since 1st grade – “the right to bear arms”.
What bothers me even more, is the gall of rightards to quote the Bill of Rights/Constitution to advance one cause, then turn a blind eye when BushCo wipes it’s collective arse with the same documents daily!
November 21st, 2007 at 10:16 amAllman Brothers
To each his/her own, but as a musician myself, a jam band (remember the Dead) are just plain too self obsessed to give me any musical pleasure.
Kinda like watching someone masturbate. Eeeeww.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:17 amthank you, gummich… iwas trying to find a band, POR…
ah hahaha!
little feat… the band… allman bros…
now, those i know… and LOVE…
not as familiar with wilco, though i have heard of…
and i’d have to rate the EAGLES above allman bros…
i guess… different styles… but, when duane died… well… sad…
my son is a THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS fan… i heard a song once
November 21st, 2007 at 10:17 amand said to him “allman brothers!” … it was “jessica”…
now, THAT was an interesting rendition… i like TMBG a lot also…
can’t wait for grandkids so i can get their kids cd…
…
If that is o.k. with you too, that is fine — just be honest about it.
Comment by cold_hard_left
\/\/ sure went thru alot of trouble to hide his DUI and his pot smoking. Not very honest that.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:17 amPoop on Americans, Mr. P, Hits….
calm down. You came here attacking. Don’t get upset if we counter your attack.
Now, a little history of myself (ever so humbly so)
November 21st, 2007 at 10:18 amWas I weak? Hell ya. I smoked a lot of THC in high school and college. Enjoyed it until I got too flippin’ paranoid. Did cocaine one weekend. Enjoyed that. Enjoyed that too much. Knew if I continued, I’d be a wreck.
Why was I weak? Because I was a friggin’ teen ager enjoying his new found freedom (away from the parents). My last inhalation of “mary jane”? Judas Priest concert, 1985.
My life now? Faithfully married for 11 years. 4 kids. Business owner. Church goer. Lover of life. Happy.
See. My life didn’t go to “hell in a hand basket” because of my poor decisions as a young adult.
There is something called “forgiveness”, that you so proudly claim for our dear (ha) leader, but can’t for those on the opposite spectrum of your political views. That is why you are a hypocrite. That is why you’re labeled a troll. That is why maybe indulging in some sort of mind altering substance may calm you down!!!
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 21, 2007
Hes related to \/\/ and Dick, would you expect any less?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:19 amTHEY MIGHT BE GIANTS
More greatness indeed. And helluva nice bunch of guys.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:20 amI do, however, support the right of my neighbor to own them and believe that right is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 21, 2007 @ 10:13 am
November 21st, 2007 at 10:21 am————————-
What well-regulated militia does your neighbor belong to? Do they have a branch in Minnesota? I’d like to join.
Now, a little history of myself (ever so humbly so)
Was I weak? Hell ya. I smoked a lot of THC in high school and college. Enjoyed it until I got too flippin’ paranoid. Did cocaine one weekend. Enjoyed that. Enjoyed that too much. Knew if I continued, I’d be a wreck.
Why was I weak? Because I was a friggin’ teen ager enjoying his new found freedom (away from the parents). My last inhalation of “mary jane� Judas Priest concert, 1985.
My life now? Faithfully married for 11 years. 4 kids. Business owner. Church goer. Lover of life. Happy.
See. My life didn’t go to “hell in a hand basket†because of my poor decisions as a young adult.
There is something called “forgivenessâ€, that you so proudly claim for our dear (ha) leader, but can’t for those on the opposite spectrum of your political views. That is why you are a hypocrite. That is why you’re labeled a troll. That is why maybe indulging in some sort of mind altering substance may calm you down!!!
I thought we were done with this.
You put words in my mouth. I never said anything about forgiving bush, or anyone else for that matter. Show me where I did.
Please keep your mouth shut if you’re going to put words in my mouth.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:22 amA well-regulated militia is more in tune than The Band on their best day.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
Clearly, you are a troll. Or a communist. No patriotic American would so besmirch the character and utter awesomeness of Levon, Garth, Robbie, Richard and Rick.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:24 amGreatest American Rock Band Ever (IMHO): The Replacements.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:25 amWhen Hillary takes office, she should immediately confiscate all guns–if only to make the gun guys pee their pants.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:26 amGreatest American Rock Band Ever (IMHO): The Replacements
Comment by Vet — November 21, 2007 @ 10:25 am
I saw their last show in Chicago way back when. Great Band
November 21st, 2007 at 10:26 amAnd regarding Huckabee, any man who can secure the support of both Chuck Norris and “The Nature Boy” Rick Flair poses great danger to whatever presidential hopes anyone else has.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:27 amWoooooo!
74
miss molly
How would you address the fact that the only people who would ultimitely be armed are the criminals?
My mom (thank god) just got her carry and conceal license. I would trust her with a license to respond a bit quicker versus waiting on police to arrive after her property or person has been. The world is a better place when the criminal is more worried about the law abiding citizens than the other way around.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:28 amThe Greatest American Rock Band Ever is clearly Spinal Tap.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:29 amBasically, what poop on republicans is saying is that we rose to his troll bait. I mean, he got all bent out of shape after someone jumped his case after only posting on _three separate threads_ (Sarcasm impaired, that was sarcasm).
Poop on Republicans, spamming is posting irrelevant messages on multiple boards. In fact, that is the definition of spam, especially forum spam which you’re doing. Once I could accept. Twice is pushing it. Three times I’d start complaining, though my complaint will also include a flag. One flag isn’t enough to get you banned, but if you are indeed a person who wants to join here and post, then clean up your act, or you’ll collect enough flags that the mods may decide you don’t contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
I’m not going to jump on the ‘he’s a troll’ bandwagon, at least not yet. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, just like I do every new poster. However, you’ve almost run out of doubt. You claim you’re not one of the set {Mr P,hits,Jake,Roger_Roger,Daryll, … , any other GOP Troll}? Well, prove it. Stop acting spammy and start contributing. Otherwise don’t be surprised if you get jumped.
We’ve had enough trolls to last for a lifetime the last year.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:29 amI never said anything about forgiving bush, or anyone else for that matter. Show me where I did.
Please keep your mouth shut if you’re going to put words in my mouth.
Comment by Poop on Americans — November 21, 2007 @ 10:22 am
Yet you said nothing when asked about George’s prior drug use. Your silence spoke volumes, my friend! Ear splitting volume!
Now, enjoy your day, and have a wonderful, happy Thanksgiving with your family or friends!!!
November 21st, 2007 at 10:30 am107
When Hillary takes office, she should immediately confiscate all guns–if only to make the gun guys pee their pants.
——–
Don’t speak too soon. She might come out during the campaign and talk about how avid a hunter she is. Probably won’t go over too well. She better lick a finger and see which way the wind is blowing before that one. :)
November 21st, 2007 at 10:31 am“What are lefties to do when the Supreme Court finally declares we Americans have a right to own and use guns once and for all?
Comment by Roger_Roger”
You bring up an interesting point RR, in the past, when the Supreme Court ruled on something, the losing side could take comfort in the belief that they got a fair hearing. But the Supreme Court has so damaged it’s reputation in the last 7 years with it’s blatantly partisan actions that that fig leaf of fairness is long gone. Thomas for instance, has all but said that he will rule against “liberals” because he is still mad over his confirmation hearings. How is that justice? How can anyone trust scalia’s rulings on anything when he goes duck hunting with the VP while he’s ruling on an issue that directly involves the VP. How can anyone trust the whole lot when they ruled, without precident, that gove v bush only applied to that ruling and cannot be precident in future cases. Never in the history of the court has that happened?
They wil probably rule in your favor RR, but deep in your heart, you know they won’t rule fairly.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:31 amThe Greatest American Rock Band Ever is clearly Spinal Tap.
Comment by toasterhead — November 21, 2007 @ 10:29 am
I saw their last show in Chicago way back when. Great Band
November 21st, 2007 at 10:33 amComment by hellinabucket — November 21, 2007 @ 10:26 am
—————————-
Toasterhead: Tonight I’m Gonna Rock You Tonight is my favorite.
Hellinabucket: I’m jealous. I have that show on CD. I saw the ‘Mats only once, but I’ve seen Westerberg a 4-5 times over the years. He just gets better with age, IMO.
I dont have problem with people legally owning guns…I have problems with people that own guns, purchased illegaly and dont secure them from kids and from theft.
Then again theres those who get drunk that shouldn’t own guns. One of my favorite examples was a friend, who got drunk, then ran out of beer, so he went to the beer store, and they said no beer for you, so he goes to pull out his pistol, from beside his care seat, cause he wanted to shoot the liquor stores window out, and proceeded to shoot himself in the thigh.
Then, there was another, name exempted, who got drunk, and shot the TV in his apartment, not much caring who was on the other side of the wall, luckily no one.
Then, there was my friend, who bought a shotgun and was jacking the shells in and out of the chamber with the barrel faced towards me, “Hey dumbass” I said,”Dont point that thing this way when doing that, it might go off.”
“It aint gonna go off” Dumbass said, then pointed the shotgun toward the ceiling and jacked some more shells, “Kabooom!!” Dumbass shot a hole in the ceiling. Luckily no one upstairs got hit.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:33 am#67
Did Scott McClellan say something?
Is that not a story?
Comment by plunger
Yeah, why isn’t this HUGE news on the TP ticker??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_mcclellan;_ylt=AkL7Fc_UCc7lhX8F_5gQicWyFz4D
Former aide blames Bush for leak deceit
Wed Nov 21, 6:38 AM ET
WASHINGTON – Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby were “not involved” in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.
“There was one problem. It was not true,” McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. “I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president’s chief of staff and the president himself.”
November 21st, 2007 at 10:33 amHow would you address the fact that the only people who would ultimitely be armed are the criminals?
My mom (thank god) just got her carry and conceal license. I would trust her with a license to respond a bit quicker versus waiting on police to arrive after her property or person has been. The world is a better place when the criminal is more worried about the law abiding citizens than the other way around.
Comment by Joneser — November 21, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Your mom now has a better chance of being killed by her own gun than she ever did before. Criminals rarely shoot the unarmed, except the high-school psychos who have easy access to guns. And nothing you have to say excuses the bullshit anti-registration mania of the gun nuts.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:34 am106… Back in the day I loved the ‘Mats but Hüsker Dü rocked too! Don’t forget X while you’re at it!
November 21st, 2007 at 10:35 amIf that is o.k. with you too, that is fine — just be honest about it.
Comment by cold_hard_left
\/\/ sure went thru alot of trouble to hide his DUI and his pot smoking. Not very honest that.
Comment by Xisithrus — November 21, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Has CHL ever addressed the well-established fact that the preznit used cocaine?
Since he used it but refuses to admit it publically, and it seems Obama used it and admits it publically, the only issue dividing them would be forthrightness on the issue.
Since that is not a quality that tighty-righties like CHL value, it should come as no surprise that he defends one and condemns the other.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:35 amComment by CZ-1 — November 21, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Yesterday’s news. Go look.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:36 amThis is only to make a point, but how is this “threadjacking” re: Greatest American Rock Band Ever not “trollish” behavior?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:36 amClearly, you aren’t trolls.
Therefore, not all “trollish behavior” is indicative of trolls.
Ergo, don’t be so quick to judge!
Has CHL ever addressed the well-established fact that the preznit used cocaine?
IOKIYAR!!!
November 21st, 2007 at 10:37 amClearly, you are a troll. Or a communist. No patriotic American would so besmirch the character and utter awesomeness of Levon, Garth, Robbie, Richard and Rick.
Comment by Wilco — November 21, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Canadians! Well, one of them isn’t.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:38 amThe Greatest American Rock Band Ever is clearly Spinal Tap.
Comment by toasterhead — November 21, 2007 @ 10:29 am
May I point out that Spinal Tap was prominently billed by the great Marty DeBergi as “one of Britain’s loudest bands”?
Shouldn’t that affect the question?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:38 amXisithrus, you might want to find yourself some new friends.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:38 amAnd clearly, the greatest american rock band ever is The Pixies
November 21st, 2007 at 10:39 amYesterday’s news. Go look.
Comment by gummitch
Why is it just “yesterday’s news” so fast? This is the President’s press secretary explicitly saying that the President instructed him to lie to the press, day in and day out for two years. That doesn’t deserve a number of postings on TP? I’d expect to see more of this over the next few days.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:40 amXisithrus, you might want to find yourself some new friends.
Comment by Wilco
Thats not as easy as it sounds in gun-toting texas! Heh.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:41 amDon’t forget X while you’re at it!
Comment by Menehune
They’re(Exene, John Doe and DJ Bonebreak) touring with their country-er group, The Knitters this fall/winter! Great stuff, don’t miss em.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:43 amComment by CZ-1 — November 21, 2007 @ 10:40 am
I’m sure you will. The press release yesterday was a teaser to sell books.
Listening to a little Dixie Chicken by LF. Good stuff. Will always be partial to the Grateful Dead. That’s where I got my moniker.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:43 amThe Pixies
Comment by Wilco
Yes, and would be taking the world by storm if Kim Deal wasn’t an agoraphobic.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:45 amSorry for the heavy dose of music posts, just not in the mood to get worked up over the state of the world yet this mornng. Trying to focus on happy thoughts and keeping my kids entertained.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:47 amWrong playbook, kiddo. That one has a big R on the front.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:47 am134…I heard she smokes drugs.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:47 amMay I point out that Spinal Tap was prominently billed by the great Marty DeBergi as “one of Britain’s loudest bands�
Shouldn’t that affect the question?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 21, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Well, yes. But Michael McKean, Christopher Guest, and Harry Shearer are all Americans, and darn funny ones at that.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:47 am132… what happened to Billy Zoom? Has he expired or is he just sick of the rest of them?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:49 amYet you said nothing when asked about George’s prior drug use. Your silence spoke volumes, my friend! Ear splitting volume!
NO! I did address that. Get a friggin clue about what you’re talking about before you open your mouth.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:51 amG’mornin all!
Dunno if something like this has been posted – but I called Senator Webb’s office this morning; I spoke to a staffer (yes, live) who confirmed that Senator Webb *will* indeed be “minding the store” in the Senate this weekend…
I called to thank him – here’s the number: (202) 224-4024
November 21st, 2007 at 10:52 am132… what happened to Billy Zoom? Has he expired or is he just sick of the rest of them?
Comment by Menehune
He was with the Knitters last year when I saw them, so I assume he’ll be back too. That guy is one HELL of a musician.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:52 amYou don’t have to be a member of a well regulated militia to have 2nd Amendment Rights. The Courts have already ruled on this. The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow citizens to have arms so that citizens could form a “well ordered militia†if needed to protect against foreign invation and/or if needed, to rise up against and prevent a tyrannical federal government.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 21, 2007 @ 10:50 am
BECAUSE there was no standing army. Y’all keep leaving that part out.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:52 amKudos to the Democrats for the pro-forma sessions.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:53 am“… so that citizens could form a “well ordered militia†if needed to protect against foreign invation and/or if needed, to rise up against and prevent a tyrannical federal government.”
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 21, 2007 @ 10:50 am
Oh yeah… yer gonna take down an F-18 wit yer blunderbuss…
November 21st, 2007 at 10:54 amThree separate threads, days apart. Seriously though, why are we still on this?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:54 amKudos to the Democrats for the pro-forma sessions.
Comment by MapleStreet — November 21, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Yeah… that brought a smile to my face. Jes don’t back down, boys!
November 21st, 2007 at 10:55 amIf they rule that gun ownership by private citizens was NOT covered by the 2nd, gun manufacturers would have to focus their attention on selling to foreign markets, which is kinda scary.
The gun lobby has been a huge success, no doubt. We’re stuck in a “catch-22″.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:55 amGummitch, is it your belief that the founding fathers intended there to be no armed citizenry?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:55 amThis is only to make a point, but how is this “threadjacking†re: Greatest American Rock Band Ever not “trollish†behavior?
Clearly, you aren’t trolls.
Therefore, not all “trollish behavior†is indicative of trolls.
Ergo, don’t be so quick to judge!
Comment by Wilco — November 21, 2007 @ 10:36 am
November 21st, 2007 at 10:55 am130
November 21st, 2007 at 10:57 amSo i guess you are surrounded by freaks, huh?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
True, but most wingnuts already own assault rifles (AR-15, AK-47, Uzi’s) cuz they believe it makes up for their physical short-comings. (Pun intended)
November 21st, 2007 at 10:58 amThis is only to make a point, but how is this “threadjacking†re: Greatest American Rock Band Ever not “trollish†behavior?
I think you’re smarter than that, but this IS an OPEN THREAD…
November 21st, 2007 at 10:59 amGummitch, is it your belief that the founding fathers intended there to be no armed citizenry?
Comment by Wilco — November 21, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Let me know how you get that from what I wrote. I was responding to the “primary purpose of the 2nd amendment” eyewash.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:00 am“What are lefties to do when the Supreme Court finally declares we Americans have a right to own and use guns once and for all?
Comment by Roger_Roger
Hey Roger, pull your string again!! Maybe the next talking point will be about abortion or gay marriage!!
YAY!!
November 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amYes, gummitch, situations may have changed over the course of the past 220 or so years. That is why the Constitution is subject to Amendment. If you think that the Country no longer needs a 2nd Amendment because it now has a standing army (although I don’t quite follow the argument), then you have the right to try to have the 2nd Amendment repealed. Good luck with that one, though.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 21, 2007 @ 10:55 am
I’m sorry you can’t follow the argument, but that’s hardly my responsibility. A militia is what is used when a standing army doesn’t exist, much like a volunteer fire department is a substitute for a paid fire department.
You were the one suggesting that the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was still valid, not me.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:03 amcitizens could form a “well ordered militia†if needed to protect against foreign invation and/or if needed, to rise up against and prevent a tyrannical federal government.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 21, 2007 @ 10:50 am
BECAUSE there was no standing army. Y’all keep leaving that part out.
Comment by gummitch — November 21, 2007 @ 10:52 am
i always wonder what affect these citizens think their guns are gonna have when facing off with tanks and choppers…
cracks me up…
…
have lots to do today… no time for blogging…
have thouroughly enjoyed the rock band comments…
MY first love, actually… i shall proclaim to be a huge BEATLES fan…
my musical tastes and likes are eclectic, to say the least…
but music is a passion… i should listen more…
lately have been consumed with news and politics…
…
have a wonderful thanksgiving day, all…
take care… of yourselves and each other…
g’day!
November 21st, 2007 at 11:03 am.
Comment by DieNowForPeace
Like I pointed out, it’s to make a point. Libs threadjack all the time on here and then turn around and lambaste cons for doing the same thing. Sometimes it’s intentional threadjacking, sometimes it’s not. Again, not all trollish behavior comes from actual trolls.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:03 amCold Hard Left, could you point me to the Amendment that was created to alter the 2nd amendment? You state a court has decided a well regulated militia isn’t needed to own a firearm but that would require an amendment to counterbalance an existing amendment.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:04 am152… because there was no standing army….
hmmm so you are telling me the founders, after making amendment #1 about free speech, said “we are about to start a country and we don’t anticipate there being a standing army like every other country in the world… we should make amendament #2 simply about making militias.
I would like to think the first two amendment we determined by the founders to show the government cannot ultimitely rise up or silence the individuals or individuals to one another… 1st my ability to speak and 2nd my ability to protect myself from potential or ultimate violence.
That I 1st, don’t have to wait for my government to speak for me and 2nd I don’t have to wait for the government to protect me either.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:05 amWilco and Poop on Republicans make an excellent point. Not all trollish behavior comes from trolls.
But in Poop on Republican’s case, he doesn’t understand one detail. Talking about greatest bands does not serve to incite harsh feelings and arguments. PoR could actually join the musical discussion if he wanted and he wouldn’t be branded a troll.
Trolls use a wide variety of tools to derail the topic of conversation. One of those tools is to post a message that is designed to raise others ire, baiting them into responding to it. Mind you, ThnkFast would be a good thread to talk about Obama using drugs, and then PoR would have to deal with the ‘So what? He fessed up to it, and we can accept that.’ But if he had ONLY put his line about Obama using drugs here, he’d have a much stronger foundation to stand on in regards to being accused of being a troll. However, he posted it on two other threads (at least), and kept posting it until he finally got a raise out of someone. I.E. Trollish behavior.
Since he’s not directly addressing the matter by responding to my post with some sense that he understands that he understands what I’m talking about, I’m forced to lose just a little bit more of the doubt that I’m giving him the benefit of. In short, ‘Strike two’. His response will determine whether or not I give him Strike three and start flagging all posts from him that are even _slightly_ trollish.
What say you, PoR?
November 21st, 2007 at 11:07 ammiss molly
How would you address the fact that the only people who would ultimitely be armed are the criminals?
Comment by Joneser — November 21, 2007 @ 10:28 am
I can understand how you feel — “because the criminals out there have guns, I need one as well to protect myself” — but stats I’ve seen comparing communities and states with highly restrictive gun laws with communities with more liberal ones generally indicate that the more guns that are around (even in the hands of law-abiding citizens who own them legally), the more guns the criminals have. Gun theft seems to be a thriving trade.
Have you seen “Bowling For Columbine”? I saw it, and it was an eye-opener. I resisted seeing it for awhile because I just assumed it was going to be a Michael Moore “guns are bad” piece. But that isn’t what he said at all. The most dramatic point he made in the entire movie was when he compared Canada to the United States — two nations that had roughly the same number of firearms per capita. Yet Canada’s gun violence rate is a great deal lower than ours. Why? The difference is FEAR. Fear is a major part of American culture. While Canadians don’t even lock their doors, Americans are shown terrifying ads telling them why they need to invest in expensive burglar alarms. Americans are constantly told that somebody wants to hurt or kill them. Americans feel they need to have guns to protect themselves from other people who have guns. And because they live in a constant state of “be afraid, be very afraid”, a gun is the first solution they think of whenever they perceive a threat.
Yes, I think we need to do more to get guns out of the hands of criminals. The black market gun trade is insane and needs to be stopped. But we also need to do something about our culture of fear that has too many of us on a hair-trigger.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:08 amgummitch, it was only a question. I’m trying to understand your point better, is all.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:08 amTo me, I don’t care about how anyone defines “militia.” I don’t understand the desire to ban an American’s possession of a tool.
People should be able to own guns because this is a free country. Guns aren’t dangerous. Idiots who buy them are. But people should be able to make the decision for themselves if they want guns.
Get a friggin clue about what you’re talking about before you open your mouth.
Comment by Poop on Republicans like Myself. — November 21, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Actually, you are in no position of authority, nor will you ever be, to tell me what to do!
November 21st, 2007 at 11:12 amHope you have a wonderful feast tomorrow, and great conversations at the dinner table!
“Gummitch, is it your belief that the founding fathers intended there to be no armed citizenry?”
Comment by Wilco —
Can we step back, and look at it from a historical perspective? It is absurd to think the founding fathers would have envisioned an unarmed citizenry, especially considering the fact that many at the time had to both hunt to eat, and at the same time protect themselves from wild animals. America was still a wilderness back then, and no FF would have been so naive as to think guns wouldn’t be necessary for the protection of families and homesteads.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:13 amRIGHT FREAKING ON —Webb for President, you go get ‘em.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
November 21st, 2007 at 11:14 amComment by barfly
And the Declaration of Independence was itself a justification for the citizenry to take up arms against its government. That’s impossible with an unarmed citizenry.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:16 amHow else does one defend against the military of an oppressive government?
Since he’s not directly addressing the matter by responding to my post with some sense that he understands that he understands what I’m talking about, I’m forced to lose just a little bit more of the doubt that I’m giving him the benefit of. In short, ‘Strike two’. His response will determine whether or not I give him Strike three and start flagging all posts from him that are even _slightly_ trollish.
I didn’t post to incite a riot.. I’ve said, I find the phrase “smoke drugs” amusing, and I posted for my own enjoyment. I continued with the discussion today because some girl started fighting with me about it. Since then, many things have been put in my mouth and my attitude and persona have been grossly misconstrued.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:21 am“How else does one defend against the military of an oppressive government?”
Comment by Wilco
I think the term “well regulated” wasn’t just a prosaic affectation: it meant governmental control (but in a representative democracy remember, not a dictatorship) of who can, and cannot own a weapon. We were meant to decide, through our representatives.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:22 amActually, you are in no position of authority, nor will you ever be, to tell me what to do!
Hope you have a wonderful feast tomorrow, and great conversations at the dinner table!
HAHAHAHAH.. POOP ON REPUBLICANS LIKE MYSELF FANTASTIC!
You’re clearly taking the moral high ground here.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:22 amOne of the biggest things for me about ‘liberalism’ is the ‘liberty’ aspect of it. Government exists to protect my liberty from the encroachment of others, at least that’s my opinion. Big corporations, other people trying to steal my possessions, etc. However, a big part of liberty is being able to defend it. I personally have no guns, but I should be allowed to have a gun in my home. I do agree that guns should be controllable by the institutions I go into — hence I am for gun control on a place by place nature. However, my home is my castle, _I_ make the laws there.
This is why I’m more Democrat than Republican, as they, as a whole, agree with ‘My home, my rules’. But even they aren’t perfect. Smoking bans that extend all the way to the house. Nanny-state intrusions. And bans against private ownership of guns. Three issues of many others that they come up with on a regular basis.
I’m sorry, I don’t want to play that game.
The Second Amendment should allow you to keep firearms, and I strongly disagree with _any_ democrat who tries to tell me otherwise. After all, what difference is there between a D telling me I can’t have a gun in my home and a R telling me my wife can’t have a girlfriend to satisfy her Bi tendancies? “We know what’s best for you!”
I don’t buy it.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:23 amI’ll accept you at face value, PoR. But why did you continuously post time and time again. Are you so dense you can’t see that “Obama smokes drugs” will incite people who are tired of having to defend those positions to Republican trolls who keep bringing them up?
Especially someone they don’t know who brings it up THREE times in THREE separate threads, two of which were totally inappropriate for that topic?
I’m not trying to jump on the PoR is a troll bandwagon here, but if you don’t understand why you’re catching flak, you really need to turn off the ‘I’m right you’re wrong’ subroutine and just THINK about it.
Why did you post three separate times, when one time was enough? What motivated you to post until you finally got a response?
Why are you so dog-garn-determined to shrug that Troll label off, to the point you refuse to say “I apologize, I shouldn’t have posted the second and third time, and I surely shouldn’t have posted it anywhere except a thread that either a) was open, such as a TF thread, or b) dealt with Obama. That was trollish, and I wasn’t meaning to go that way.”
A simple pair of sentences is all you have to say. Then all you have to do is pay attention to what you’re doing.
Do you see now why people are accusing you of being a Troll?
Just trying to be the voice of reason here…
November 21st, 2007 at 11:29 amAnd “well regulated” also encompasses the type of weapons we allow. There is no reason to have a fifty cal. sniper rifle to defend yourself (mostly because you’d be dead before you could get it loaded and sighted, but I digress) from intruders. A misfire could easily kill a neighbor, because the bullets can penetrate plate steel.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:30 amA question for Roger_Roger, Joneser, cold_hard_left, and other conservative posters here:
Where do you stand on the “right to bear arms” scale? I have listed a few of the marks on the scale for your consideration:
No deadly weapons of any kind permitted in the hands of citizens
No firearms permitted in the hands of citizens
Citizens may buy sporting firearms only (rifles, shotguns) with registration and screening
Citizens may buy sporting firearms and small arms with registration and screening
Anybody can buy sporting firearms and small arms with registration — no screening
Anybody can buy any legal firearm with no registration, screening, or age limit
Citizens may own semi-automatic weapons
Citizens may own fully-automatic weapons
Citizens may own weapons that go beyond conventional firearms — such as grenades, rocket launchers, and other military ordnance
Citizens may privately own nuclear devices
(Not all of these items are in perfect order — it’s possible to support the ownership of automatic weapons, but still want registration and screening for them, for example.)
So where on the line do you stand? Inquiring minds wish to know.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:31 amI’m all for the wife having a girlfriend to satisfy bi-tendencies.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:32 amWhy did you post three separate times, when one time was enough? What motivated you to post until you finally got a response?
I told you, I found it amusing. Also, I was bored, and the topics were not all that interesting to me, so I wanted to post an interesting topic. I posted a different comment in each thread, not the same comment. And in none of the threads did I make it so a reader would infer that I was trying to start a fight with my comments about a Democrat.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:36 am“Citizens may privately own nuclear devices”
Careful, missmolly. You’re stroking a blood-engorged rightwing fantasy with that kind of talk.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:36 amI’m all for the wife having a girlfriend to satisfy bi-tendencies.
Comment by ForTruth — November 21, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Hey, me too. Unfortunately, my wife keeps insisting that she has NO bi-tendencies. I secretly have the Cinemax at night movies on in our bedroom while she sleeps in hopes of subliminally changing her mind. No go yet though.
(Public disclaimer: Daryll, if you’re here, I’m being sarcastic. It’s all a joke. No need to respond in your hypocritical holier that thou posts. Thanks in advance!)
November 21st, 2007 at 11:41 amMe on the firearms scale:
Registration/Permit required with background check and proof of education. (Knowledge is power)
Melee weapons permitted.
Edged requires permit as above.
Display/Non-Edged OK.
Firearms
* Hunting Weapons OK with permit (Easy to get.)
* Small Arms OK with permit (easy to get)
- Conceal Carry Permit OK (Harder but still easy to get)
- Can override firearm ban with certification (Hard to get)
- (You need to basically have a security certificate)
* Semi-Auto weapons require full permit. (Very hard to get)
* Automatic Weapons require full permit + security certification.
* Non-conventional weapons not allowed.
Basically, my idea is this. In your home, you’re allowed to have weapons related to hunting and self defense. Semi-Auto weapons are right at the border. If you have need of an automatic weapon, you need to prove your need for it…and that need should be very hard to demonstrate.
Conceal Carry should not trump an owner’s right to not have firearms on his or her property except in certain cases, many of which would include a trained security professional on a public area such as a college campus.
And if you need a light anti-tank weapon to defend your property, the gophers in your yard better be large, breath fire, and pack 50cal machine guns. ;)
November 21st, 2007 at 11:41 am166
Miss Molly
I have never been one to subscribe to any Michael Moore documentary. He has used too many tricks to justify them anything “Moore” than movies. There are plenty of facts he ommited in comparing Canada and the U.S. particulary where he attempted to extrapolate gun crime rates for a a populaiton that is a 1/5th of ours and neglecting to show how rural Canada is and in addition to how they determine “urban” cities. At the same time Canada has twice the rate of rapes we do. We further this by looking at Finland which has per capita more gun owner ship than any country from what i recall. Yet they do not have a coorelating crime rate to fullfill the hypothesis about “more guns = more crime”
I can’t go into the entire list of thinkgs but rest assured if a person lies or leaves out simple facts and edits in and out certain information, I can’t except what he/ or she is presenting, let alone anything there after. In that same movie he walks into a bank and opens an account to get a gun. He edits it to appear the same day without a background check because he wears the same outfit. That’s juvenile… Anyway i just think Moore perpetrate the same thing he was protesting “fear.”
November 21st, 2007 at 11:42 amCareful, missmolly. You’re stroking a blood-engorged rightwing fantasy with that kind of talk.
Comment by barfly — November 21, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Well, if the “right to bear arms shall not be infringed” crowd TRULY believes that, they shouldn’t mind having a missile silo in their subdivision, privately owned by that peculiar guy who never talks to any of his neighbors, should they?
/sarc off
I honestly believe that EVERYBODY believes in some level of arms control. The question is how much.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:44 amPOOP ON REPUBLICANS LIKE MYSELF FANTASTIC!
You’re clearly taking the moral high ground here.
Comment by Poop on Republicans NOT like Myself — November 21, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Hey, sorry I infringed on your Moral posting name. You chose the word “Poop”. I chose to indicate that you’re acting like a Republican.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:44 amHave a wonderful, and non drug induced day!
Hey, sorry I infringed on your Moral posting name. You chose the word “Poopâ€. I chose to indicate that you’re acting like a Republican.
Have a wonderful, and non drug induced day!
Comment by DRxJ The Republican — November 21, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Gotcha.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:46 amMichael Moore was great in “Team America”
November 21st, 2007 at 11:46 amComment by Joneser — November 21, 2007 @ 11:42 am
I really didn’t post about Michael Moore to switch the focus to him, just to point out that he’s correct about the fear element in the gun ownership equation. And that’s one we need to pay attention to.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:52 amTo me, I don’t care about how anyone defines “militia.†I don’t understand the desire to ban an American’s possession of a tool.
People should be able to own guns because this is a free country. Guns aren’t dangerous. Idiots who buy them are. But people should be able to make the decision for themselves if they want guns.
Comment by Wilco — November 21, 2007 @ 11:08 am
I have never suggested banning guns, personally, even if I thought it was possible. I’ve even talked with my gun-nut friend about choosing a handgun and taking classes.
I do not understand why we require training and licensing to operate a motor vehicle and not to operate something designed solely to take life. It makes no sense.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:53 amHeh, funny that I was reading about the Augment virus yesterday.
Background for the non-trekkers.
The Klingon Empire, the ridge-headed warrior culture from Star Trek, had a major transformation between Enterprise and the Old Series, and then from the Old Series to the movies. Those of you who remember watching the old series back in the 60’s might remember the dark-skinned human-like Klingons from that series. Until an episode of Enterprise, however, no explanation was given as to why the Klings turned from ridge-headed warrior race to smooth-headed warrior race then back to ridge heads in time for the motion picture.
The Klingons had discovered a few frozen embryos from the time when Humans had experimented on their own DNA. Basically, they found a few of Khans relatives. They saw that and thought that they were seeing humankind’s answer to the Klingon Empire, engineered human warriors to defeat the Klingons (after all, that’s exactly what the Klingons would do in their place). So, the Klingons started messing with the DNA from the humans, and trying to splice it into Klingons. The splice killed the Klingon. Unfortunately, a flu virus found its way into the mix, and suddenly turned into a transformation virus. Kinda like the viruses mentioned by critical thinker. Since the transformation was inevitably fatal and the virus spread like a flu, that turned into a pandemic that could have wiped out the entire Klingon race. The episode of Enterprise basically dealt with Dr. Phlox of the Enterprise coming up with an antidote, and the best he could do was halt the change before it killed the Klingons….but the end result was this.
Interesting Sci-Fi aside, and another reason why we need more focus on science and technology in today’s USA.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:54 am“I honestly believe that EVERYBODY believes in some level of arms control. The question is how much.”
Comment by missmolly
I live near where Blackwater is attempting to build a training facility, and I wonder just what they would be using to practice with. Would they be using weapons that terrorists could conceivably use? RPGs and IEDs? Scary thought.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:55 amgummitch, I agree. The key is regulation.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:59 amAnd for the safety of others and the users! training should be necessary to purchasing a handgun. I know in a lot of places it is.
Regulate the heck out of guns, but don’t ban them.
178 Miss Molly
Here is my scale
No deadly weapons of any kind permitted in the hands of citizens
-Anything can be a deadly weapon when you want someon dead
No firearms permitted in the hands of citizens
-That worked well for Hitler pre-WW2 and reason why the Japanese thought twice about invading California at the time
Citizens may buy sporting firearms only (rifles, shotguns) with registration and screening
-only? nope
Citizens may buy sporting firearms and small arms with registration and screening
-absolutely
Anybody can buy sporting firearms and small arms with registration — no screening
-absolutely not
Anybody can buy any legal firearm with no registration, screening, or age limit
-absolutely not
Citizens may own semi-automatic weapons
-simply put, yes based on the above opinions
-with depth, if you think a person with one wants to kill you, you are a “fearful”. never mind the same citizen could protect you as well
Citizens may own fully-automatic weapons
-same as statement above
Citizens may own weapons that go beyond conventional firearms — such as grenades, rocket launchers, and other military ordnance
-nope, there comes to a point wher public safety and and national security comes to play
Citizens may privately own nuclear devices
-are you serious? see above.
Bottom line I believe in the individual, the establishment of laws, and i trust in them. Society can regulate itself if given the oppurtunity. We have common sense and an essence of self preservation, and ability to help and/ or protect out fellow man. I don’t need the government to tell me “when” or “how” I can do so when it isn’t a true issue of public safety. There are laws on the books that need to be tightened and there are laws on the books that need to be loosened. But it seems that Mantras have gotten in the way of common sense.
Molly, if you and i stood in line at a bank, we should have no fear of one another whether you or I were armed or both. Because there are laws that protect the spirit and the ability to make decisions about how I choose to protect the persons or person who embodies it. So when that guy decides to walk into that bank in hopes of robbing it, we can hope he gives pause before walking in and has a second thought. But if he doesn’t and continues, let evolution take it course so to speak.
I just think if we examine the laws and truely use common sense to repeal and or amend, from longer sentences or death penalties and strict regulations and background checks or psych tests, we can find a happy medium. Instead of you lookin at me as a gun slinging fear mongeror, or i looking at you as a gun grabber.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:07 pmGotta keep em happy.
What other lobby represents a full-fledged civilian army?
The government has no choice.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:11 pmCrap. We have to get a license and proof of insurance to simply drive a car.
Why is there such a fuss about requiring a license to own and use a piece of equipment with ONLY one function: killing another living creature…?
November 21st, 2007 at 12:17 pmWe have to get a license and proof of insurance to simply drive a car.
I’d still like to see these requirements applied to child birth.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:18 pm185
Miss Molly, based on Barfly’s statement, you can see what I am talking about. “blood engorged”… yeah deep stuff. I’m glad you and I can simply speak to the issue rather than “progressive” mantra and steroetyping by Barfly(s).
November 21st, 2007 at 12:24 pm197 Annie
Yes we pro-gun rights folk only look to own a gun in order to someday kill someone. Annie, I guess if you were threatened with a potential rape you would choose the bow and arrow as a form of protection instead of a hand gun in your purse for protection?
November 21st, 2007 at 12:29 pmI can’t go into the entire list of thinkgs but rest assured if a person lies or leaves out simple facts and edits in and out certain information, I can’t except what he/ or she is presenting, let alone anything there after. In that same movie he walks into a bank and opens an account to get a gun. He edits it to appear the same day without a background check because he wears the same outfit. That’s juvenile… Anyway i just think Moore perpetrate the same thing he was protesting “fear.â€
Comment by Joneser — November 21, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Joneser, you conveniently lie when it suits you as well. Moore posted a $10,000 reward for proving facts were wrong, nobody collected. So take your rightwing nonsense elsewhere, or try the truth for a change.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:33 pmJoneser, how can you criticize Barfly for his “mantra and stereotyping” and then attack Annie?
November 21st, 2007 at 12:34 pmShe is right, guns are designed to kill. Not open cans or replace hole punches. Nor do they make good doorstops. Guns are meant to kill.
Whether the kill is justified or not, that is the purpose of a gun.
You can cloak it in the rhetoric of protection, sure. Great. Responsible gun owners will use it for just that. But that’s not what guns do. Guns shoot bullets that destroy tissue, muscle, bone, and organs. The end might be protection, but the means is death by gun.
So, again, Annie is right. Guns kill. It’s what they do.
instead of a hand gun in your purse for protection?
Comment by Joneser
My wife does fine carrying “only” a stun gun. We’re not bow hunters.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:35 pm200 – Joneser, I have lived on this earth for over 50 years.
I have never yet felt so threatened that I believed that a gun would be the answer, nor do I think I ever will…unless Dubbie declares himself “Dictator for Life” and the 2nd Revolutionary War starts, of course.
Frankly – and you can make of this what you will – I would rather suffer being raped than kill someone.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:35 pmComment by Joneser — November 21, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
You and I agree on many elements of this little scale. I believe it would be virtually impossible to enforce a “no deadly weapons” law since, as you say, many things can become a weapon. The “no firearms” is almost as ridiculous, since that would completely eliminate the hunting industry, as well as deny farmers and ranchers a way to put down suffering livestock or eliminate wild animals who are a threat.
I also agree with you that military ordnance and nuclear devices have no business being in the hands of ordinary citizens — and I think you see that I included those just to take the concept to the extreme.
As far as that gray area in the middle: I would like to see anybody who wants to own a gun be able to pass a background check, be required to take a gun course, and pass a test for a gun ownership license (similar to a test for a driver’s license) before being able to take delivery of the gun they purchased. (For subsequent gun purchases, retaking the course may not be necessary if they can still pass the license test.)
Same applies for concealed carry permits. Except I would add that if you are carrying a gun, you may not become intoxicated — just like if you are drunk, you may not drive a car. Carrying a gun under the influence should be grounds for confiscation of one’s license AND gun.
I don’t support the sale of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons unless it can be demonstrated the citizen has a genuine need for them. They should be very difficult to get.
We both fall on the scale in the middle between the extremes, as most of us do. Even though you are a little to the right of me on that scale, I think you will see we probably have more similarities than differences.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:37 pmOh, what a can ‘o worms we got here!
I would rather suffer being raped than kill someone.
Comment by Leftside Annie
What do you do with the “rapist’s” baby? Give it back to society and hope it doesn’t become a felon, raise it with pride, or abort – oops, that’s murder!
I seriously doubt you’d feel anything but MURDER/REVENGE if you were ever so violated. As an adult male, I would prefer to see ALL rapists hanged.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:41 pm204 – and – for what it’s worth – I live in Los Angeles – and I have for over 20 years.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:43 pm206 – I would have an abortion, of course. I’m a liberal – what else??
And yes, I don’t deny that I’d be murderously angry at the rapist if – God forbid – that should happen.
I don’t believe that rapists receive the kind of punishment they deserve in our criminal justice system – just as habitual drunk drivers are also slapped on the wrist and sent back out to commit their crime again.
However…still …I simply cannot see myself pointing a gun at any living creature and pulling the trigger. EVER.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:46 pmThe idea that having a gun will save all women from rape seems pretty ludicrous to me! I can imagine that in a small percentage of instances it might help but let’s not equate everyone walking around with a gun to no more rapes! At the very least, what if the potential rapist also had a gun? Where would most women keep their gun? In their purse? What if you got grabbed and didn’t have enough time to pull your gun out? What if you did get the gun out and the rapist grabbed that too? And then there’s this:
“Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives.”
Better keep that loaded gun under your pillow then!
November 21st, 2007 at 12:49 pmAnd, for the record, I would have the abortion the instant I discovered my pregnancy – I don’t believe a clump of cells is a “person.”
This is just in case anyone accuses me of being inconsistent…
November 21st, 2007 at 12:50 pm201….
The man of the people Michael Moore alsoe has a fondneess for lawsuits on opposition as well so what is the point. Why even bother playing in same pool as someone who likes to pee in it?
202…
No i use no language to suggest I was attacking her especially as “barfly” did. You can check any post I ever submitted.
I commented that she suggested that to own a gun is simply to kill someone. I suggested it is a bit deeper that to own a gun is to protect me form being killed as well. But as at face value as a sentence it could kill someone of course.
And yes guns kill based on the direction a PERSON chooses to use them. I odn’t need to fall back to that age old line do I?
203… My wife is a cop, and she can’t carry a stun gun at her job because of law suits… cause she has to potentiall ask a 300 pound man coming at her if he has a heart condition so the department doesn’t have a lawsuit. Nevermind they don’t work alot of time anyway.
204… Well there you go. However, it was a rhetorical scenerio, and whats good for your goose doesn’t always apply to others, hence the idea of choice. At least in that regard, when the rapists goes on to the next victim, he won’t be so potentially “lucky” especially if was my Mom as of last week. I hope you didn’t killing someone confused with murdering someone, I think there is a difference.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:50 pm201….
The man of the people Michael Moore alsoe has a fondneess for lawsuits on opposition as well so what is the point. Why even bother playing in same pool as someone who likes to pee in it?
What an evasion, what a typical coward you are.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:53 pm209 – And Marie, you’re correct. That whole “shoot a rapist” thing is a strawman designed to produce a knee-jerk reaction: FEAR.
That’s all the right wing has …fear.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:55 pm211 – Killing someone or murdering someone…?
They’re still DEAD.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pm209
I make no pretense that this is a perfect scenerio. In the same instant I nuance your statement that many rapists do hold women at gun point or knife point from the very start. I’m suggesting that is it another step in security for him or her every night when they walk home from work. If she was trained when she got her license she can be ready, and that potential rapist walking behind her has something to think about as well.
I guess if i lived my life on that stat I would just be a lesbian, to make it simple.
210
I would agree with you on the abortion as well. I see no inconsitency in that part. It wasn’t like you “chose” to be raped.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pm212 “coward”
I evaded nothing, I would say I was offended by that statement, but being a young black male conservative, I think i am rather courageous. But I do thank you for stereotyping me with simple name calling without explaining how it was cowardly. But being that I am not “simple” let me explain. Michael Moore (and I thought Bowling for Columbine was truthful when I went to the theatre to see it) has used slick editing. Look up this film, “In Manufacturing Dissent” a documentary about Moore. And if you can’t except this documentary yet can except Michael Moores, I would find one very close minded. Two Canadian “left-winged” film makers started out wanting to do a documentary about someone they admired, but being true to a documentary, they followed where the story led rather than making people follow their story ala Moore.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:29 pmI just belive Moore does harm to the Progressive cause than good. However if you believe in “by any means necessary” then forget what i said.
214
Well clearly they are morally equivalent to you. So there is really nothing to discuss further about the difference. After all robbing a bank or taking money out of your account is the same thing right? You got the money to spend so its all good.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:31 pm218
That’s one way of looking at it.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:10 pmThat’s just inappropriate, RHF.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:28 pmPlease review TP rules.
Comment by Southern Man — November 21, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Conservatives aren’t the only ones who use fear, although our current leaders use fear to control the populace (terror alert orange today!). The media use fear because sensationalism is better for ratings. Advertisers use fear more and more to sell their products — often telling us we need to be afraid of things we never really thought much about (germs are scary! germs are bad! eliminate them all!), or things that we have always lived with but never knew we had to be concerned with (really? I could get erosions in my esophagus?), or overt life or death matters (”don’t let this happen to you! Get a Brinks home security system!”), or even social embarrassment (”ring around the collar!”).
There’s enough blame to go around.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pmRHF, I expect libs to be better than neocons. Should I not expect that of you?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pmAnd should I assume you’re fine with what SM said because you answered him in kind?
RHF, try to find another way to engage in debate, rather than just lob insults.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pmYou deserve criticism because you’re a jerk. You don’t know how to behave yourself or how to talk to people who have different opinions. Instead of arguing merits, you just attack, using zero substance. You are the worst of all trolls on this site. You make everyone here look bad.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pmRight, you’re the adult. Sure thing.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:54 pmYou might be an adult the day you understand the difference between debate and argument.
26 dollars a barrel for oil
November 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pm26 dollars for oil
We elect a dumbsh*t, 9/11 hits…
99 dollars a barrel for oil
Joneser – your reply to my “they’re still dead” was truly ridiculous – so ridiculous, in fact, that I’m not even going to comment further on it, other than to say that it’s another strawman that you set up to bolster an untenable position.
Killing/murder in my mind are far different than taking ANY amount of money (or material thing) – whether you take the money legally or you steal it.
The person from whom you take money still has his or her life. Even if I stole their money, I did not take their life – thus they are free to acquire more money. Or go home and kiss their children.
The person I kill – whether I shoot in self-defense, anger or drug-fueled insanity – is still dead – and that’s the end of the line. No appeal.
I stand by what I said. Killing should be the last, extreme, desperate resort – not the first thought.
Oh – and if you’re a Christian, Joneser, ask Jesus about that, ok?
November 21st, 2007 at 3:17 pmwell this has certainly dissloved into silliness. Back to the name calling. I hope you all have a great thanksgiving, the original meaning behind “seperation of church state”
November 21st, 2007 at 3:19 pm231 – Joneser – I did not call you any names. I simply said that your strawman argument was ridiculous.
Which it is. ;o)
November 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pm250…
I agree with you. But you said killing or murder… it doesn’t matter they are still dead. And clearly the end result your point. It didn’t matter the means you were looking the result. And i said there is nothing to argue about if you have that concept about life. I don’t , and that was how i approached it. Because in my world, if you commit premeditated murder, i.e. intent to kill without moral or reasonable justification, you should be dead in my book because it does save future lives.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national/main2911428.shtml
I also suggest you read the book by John R Lott. it is very interesting.
Insert more accountability for indivdual choices in society and people will act accordingly instead of regulating and controlling what an individual behavior and make excuses for it when it doesn’t work.
For the record when Michael Moore uses Canada as Utopia, he fails to mention that rapes are more than doubled that of the U.S. and their violent crime rate is 50% higher
November 21st, 2007 at 3:40 pm253
I don’t know which post you are refering to “231″. Either way I was refering to Left Patriot. Again, we can agree to disagree Annie. You can say it is straw man if you wish. But I odn’t look at a result and see it as a result. I look at how the result was concluded. I don’t see a dead man on a street and say “what a tragedy” I want to know how he ended up dead to determine how tragic it was.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pmI also suggest you read the book by John R Lott. it is very interesting.
Insert more accountability for indivdual choices in society and people will act accordingly instead of regulating and controlling what an individual behavior and make excuses for it when it doesn’t work.
For the record when Michael Moore uses Canada as Utopia, he fails to mention that rapes are more than doubled that of the U.S. and their violent crime rate is 50% higher
Comment by Joneser — November 21, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
You recommend Lott, and then throw out a bunch of lies, and you’re supposed to have any credibility? Lott has been destroyed time and again as an insane liar with serious mental problems, and you really should link to some studies when you slander Canada in that fashion. You are wrong, and a liar.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:39 pmIsn’t it funny how Southern pansy raised the issue of sex with Michael Moore. Something’s not quite right there, Sucking Man.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pmJonser: “I also suggest you read the book by John R Lott. it is very interesting.”
Is that the same John R. Lott who, posing as a woman poster, wrote wonderful reviews of Lott’s work and expressed her admiration for him many times before she was outed as John Lott and he was publically embarassed?
November 21st, 2007 at 6:09 pmJonser: “I also suggest you read the book by John R Lott. it is very interesting.â€
But, before you read that, get a load of this article on economist John R. Lott. The guy writes the book on crackpots:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html
November 21st, 2007 at 6:15 pmSouthern man: “The high crime rate is a lack of morals…”
There is no way to measure this so it’s simply an opinion. What you do see is that there is a direct correlation to economics. The more poverty, the more crime. And, someone posted above that murder rates and rapes are higher in Canada than in the U.S. That’s just not true. The World Health Organization has the numbers on this.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:44 pmI find it interesting and ironic that gun advocates still think of Michael Moore as the enemy. If they took the time to watch and listen to “Bowling for Columbine,” they would find out that Moore’s conclusion is that it’s not the guns, it’s us. He clearly shows that we are living in a fear-based culture with no security or social support compared to Canada and this is part of what makes us violent. He points out that there is more per-capita gun ownership in Canada than the U.S., but their society is a lot less violent. If gun advocates didn’t have their heads stuffed up their behinds, they’d get behind social policy to make our society less violent and eventually, nobody would be bothering them about their guns because there wouldn’t be a problem.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:16 pmMiss Molly, based on Barfly’s statement, you can see what I am talking about. “blood engorgedâ€â€¦ yeah deep stuff. I’m glad you and I can simply speak to the issue rather than “progressive†mantra and steroetyping by Barfly(s).
Comment by Joneser —
How do you have sex with Michael Moore? Throw him in money and go for the wet spot.
Comment by Southern Man
So Joneser, you complain that my joke is stereotyping, but you say nothing about this stereotypical slur of Moore. Your selective outrage is funny, and lame. And by the way, the Right HAS used the suitcase nuke fantasy for some time now – or have you not been watching “24?” The “blood-engorged” line must have gone right over your head, since you don’t know the Right has been cashing in on the suitcase nuke fantasy for some time now. Righties have used the imaginary threat of a small, portable nuke for quite a while, to get readers and watchers for their blood-engorged “product.”
Next time you decide to decry a lefty joke, make sure you also attack Righties who also “stereotype” with humor (as my example clearly shows), or you’ll just sound like a whiny partisan.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:42 pmAnd here’s Joneser, stereotyping Moore:
For the record when Michael Moore uses Canada as Utopia, he fails to mention that rapes are more than doubled that of the U.S. and their violent crime rate is 50% higher
Comment by Joneser
Someone’s a hypocrite. Guess who?
November 21st, 2007 at 7:53 pm“For the record when Michael Moore uses Canada as Utopia…”
Joneser
Yeah, now THERE’S the highly intellectual tone us libs should emulate.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:56 pm