ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [242] -- Obama's Second Inauguration

[ Posted Friday, January 25th, 2013 – 18:20 PST ]

President Barack Hussein Obama's second inauguration pretty much dominated the political news this week.

Oh, wait, I meant to say "a lip-synching scandal" was what dominated the airwaves in what passes for "journalism" in America these days. Sigh.

I usually resist the urge to get sucked into these non-stories with all the rest of the mediaverse, but I've just got to weigh in on this one. I don't care whether a singer lip-synchs or actually sings as much as I care that they get the song right. Yo-Yo Ma "string-synched" his number at Obama's first inauguration, and nobody seemed to mind too much (it is tough to keep a stringed instrument in tune when it is 20 degrees out). As far as I could tell this Monday, though, nobody could manage to resist the urge to "interpret" the songs they sang. There was a lot of song-icide taking place up there on the stage, folks, and the only properly-performed pieces of music seemed to be the instrumentals from the military band.

Here's a brilliant idea: how about we not have divas, prima donnas, and egomaniacs sing at official occasions? How about we get people who will swear not to "interpret" or "rearrange" or otherwise give "their versions" of our nation's patriotic songs?

I'm not saying there "should be a law" or anything. Musicians are free to add trills, frills, and other vocal nonsense to whatever songs they wish -- just not, please, at the inauguration of a president. Jimi Hendrix did a ripping good instrumental version of "The Star Spangled Banner" (complete with aural "bombs bursting in air"), but I don't recall he was ever invited to Washington to perform it during an official governmental ceremony.

Some might argue that the versions performed were "beautiful," which is, as always, in the ear of the behearer (so to speak). The soloist in the choir had a great voice, I'll admit, but whatever they were performing simply wasn't "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," which is actually supposed to be a march, in 4/4 time (which makes sense, it being a "battle hymn" and all).

I would sincerely love it if the politicians and event organizers would reject, out of hand, any performer who might be expected to, after the event, tweet her thanks to "President Obama for opening for me." How about we get rid of the egomaniacs, in other words? Instead, I would vote for getting one of those singing police officers or firefighters with a wonderful tenor range. Or a high school group using a traditional music score. Or a war veteran with a nice voice, who could be relied upon to sing our National Anthem the way it was written.

Now you see why I rarely get involved in these spats. My curmudgeonly side comes out way too easily. I prefer, however, to think of myself in this regard as merely "traditionalist."

There was plenty of other news this week, since Congress had one of those rare weeks were they actually, you know, work for a day or two. The Republican Party is apparently still soul-searching, with such party stalwarts as Haley Barbour suggesting that maybe they might not make so many "stupid comments, offensive comments" in the future. Sounds like a good idea, but will the rest of the Republicans agree? Well, maybe not. A state legislator in New Mexico -- a woman, mind you -- actually tried to push a law this week that would make it a felony for a woman who got raped to get an abortion, because (are you sitting down?) it would be "tampering with the evidence" of the crime. Looks like Haley's got his work cut out for him, eh?

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Hillary Clinton did a great job of testifying before Congress this week, including her own "have you no shame?" sort of moment. John Kerry was also impressive before Congress (the committee he chairs, in fact), but what was even more impressive was how he did not just blow off a protester at his hearing.

But this week, there can truly only be one pick for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

 

ObamaOath

The 44th President Of The United States Of America
Barack Hussein Obama

 

[Congratulate President Barack Obama on his White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Likewise, this week there really was only one choice for Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already won a record 24 MDDOTW awards, and none was so deserved as this week's twenty-fifth.

Now, admittedly, filibuster reform is an arcane subject to many -- even to those who are paid to comment on the subject. The San Jose Mercury News, for example, ran an editorial today which included the line: "Every four years, following a presidential election, the Senate can review and revise its rules." Um, well, no. Actually, the Senate is allowed to do this every two years, when "a new Congress" is formed, after each congressional election. But at least they got the main concept right, opening their editorial with: "Harry Reid blew it."

Harry Reid did, indeed, blow it. The magnitude of Reid's cravenness means he didn't so much "cave" as "cavern." Reid reportedly had enough votes to force "talking filibusters" back onto the Senate floor, but instead he cut a gentleman's agreement with Mitch McConnell which McConnell will, likely, soon ignore (as he did the last such gentleman's agreement with Reid on the filibuster, two years ago).

The deal is jaw-droppingly stupid. Supposedly, if the two leaders and seven members of each party agree not to filibuster, then no filibuster will happen. OK, let's examine the numbers of that deal, shall we? If Harry Reid holds his caucus together, right now (with no deal necessary), all it takes is five Republicans to stop a filibuster. Someone please explain how requiring eight Republicans -- including Mitch McConnell -- to end a filibuster is somehow better? In what universe is this improvement, Harry?

Senate Democrats are stuck with Harry Reid as their leader for the next two years. Surely at least some of them are having second thoughts about their leadership vote right about now. Reid should do us all a favor and announce that this will be (due to increased age, or health reasons, or whatever other face-saving veneer he chooses) his final term as the leader of the Senate Democrats. Then we could see, for the next two years, who would be a better replacement for him (the safe betting would be on either Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin, at this point).

Senator Tom Harkin probably summed up the situation best, saying: "It's a baby step. Really, it's a baby baby step. I said to President Obama back in August... and I said to him the night before the election, I said to him, 'Look, if you get reelected, if we don't do something significant about filibuster reform, you might as well take a four-year vacation. This is not significant."

Harry's cavernous collapse on reforming the filibuster is nothing short of a slap in the face to all Democrats, most especially the majority of the Senate who were willing to vote on forcing real talking filibusters back into existence. This is just inexcusable. For his spinelessness this week, and for believing anything which comes out of Mitch McConnell's mouth, Harry Reid is, quite obviously, the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

As they say -- "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, call me Harry Reid."

[Contact Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 242 (1/25/13)

A few odds and ends, and then we're going to use today's talking points for highlights from President Obama's Second Inaugural speech.

Democrats in general did a pretty good job staying on the "immigration reform" talking points this week, which was a welcome surprise. Next week is supposed to be when some real news is made on this front, but it's good to see Democrats speaking with one voice, for once.

Normally, I'd use this for a humorous final talking point, because it really didn't fit anywhere else. Republican ex-officeholder Tom Tancredo lost a bet. Seems he was certain that Colorado wasn't going to legalize weed, so he made one of those "crazy politician" types of bets. Now that he's been proven wrong, he's swearing he'll make good on his wager, and actually smoke marijuana legally in his home state. Really, the jokes just write themselves on this one. Feel free to add your humorous take on it in the comments, as always.

OK, odds and ends out of the way, let's get to examining President Obama's speech. As I did four years ago, I selected the excerpts from the speech which I feel will stand the test of time. When history looks back on this past Monday, this (I think) is what it will remember from Obama's speech. Historic mentions of gay rights and climate change were notable, as well as the narrative the entire speech struck of strongly standing up for what the Democratic Party is supposed to be all about.

The individual items contained within the speech are, for the most part, overwhelmingly popular with the American public. While it is still an open question as to how much of this agenda Obama will be able to achieve, he certainly made the strongest case he could on Monday.

This was followed by a bout of amnesia inside the Beltway, as the chattering classes bemoaned the fact that Obama "didn't reach out to the Republicans" in his speech. It's as if the past four years never happened, or something. Here's a memo to the media at large: Obama tried that, in his first inaugural speech. It didn't work. In the immortal words of Joe Bob Briggs: "I'm surprised I have to explain this stuff."

Enough pundit-bashing, though. Let's focus on Obama's speech, instead. Each excerpt requires no introduction -- all of the following are Obama's own words.

 

1
   While these truths may be self-evident, they've never been self-executing

Today we continue a never-ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they've never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

And for more than two hundred years, we have.

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

 

2
   Ultimately requires collective action

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today's world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we'll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America's possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it -- so long as we seize it together.

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.

 

3
   They do not make us a nation of takers

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.

We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us at any time may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

 

4
   The overwhelming judgment of science

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.

The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition, we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries, we must claim its promise. That's how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure -- our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow-capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That's what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

 

5
   Our journey is not complete

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths -- that all of us are created equal -- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

It is now our generation's task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law -- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity -- until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.

 

6
   To act in our time

That is our generation's task -- to make these words, these rights, these values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time.

 

7
   We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect

For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today's victories will be only partial and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years and 40 years and 400 years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

64 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [242] -- Obama's Second Inauguration”

  1. [1] 
    dsws wrote:

    If Harry Reid holds his caucus together ...

    Louisiana purchase, cornhusker kickback. This would be infinitesimally better than nothing, were it not for the pain of adding insult to injury.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton did a great job of testifying before Congress this week, including her own "have you no shame?" sort of moment.

    You mean when she screamed hysterically "what does that matter now"??

    Because I have a perfect answer for that...

    It matters as much as it mattered when Democrats went on a witch hunt on President Bush for every time he farted in their general direction..

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a completely unrelated note (as I am wont to do of Fridays)

    I thought ya might like to see this, CW...

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/comic-book-hero-judge-dredd-might-be-gay-8466959.html

    Wonder how long it will be til Superman is gay... :^/

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Wonder how long it will be til Superman is gay... :^/

    now that you mention it, a guy from another planet who wears bright blue tights and is afraid of green rocks? hmmmmmm....

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    now that you mention it, a guy from another planet who wears bright blue tights and is afraid of green rocks? hmmmmmm....

    Touche'... Ya got me on that one! :D

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://sjfm.us/temp/gopfault.jpg

    Ya see!??

    THIS is how the Left thinks...

    It's all the GOP's fault..

    Democrats are as pure as the driven snow...

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem with Obama is that he thinks that the American people are FOR Gun Control..

    What he doesn't realize is that it's only the American LEFT that is for Gun Control..

    And they are far FAR outnumbered by Americans who are standing up for the 2nd Amendment...

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rutherford points to Governor Quinn and the Democrat controlled general assembly for making matters worse in the last two years– raising taxes but not acting on pension reform.

    http://wgntv.com/2013/01/26/illinois-credit-rating-downgraded-state-drops-to-worst-in-the-nation/

    Democrats in action.....

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    ABC Gives Sen. Menendez Six Minute Interview With No Questions About FBI's Hooker Investigation

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/27/abc-gives-sen-menendez-six-minute-interview-no-questions-about-fbis-h#ixzz2JCXgdyuV

    And people STILL believe that the MSM is not in the bag for Democrats...

    Simply amazing....

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of gun control...

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
    Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

    -Benjamin Franklin

    Now THAT is funny!!! :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You Can’t Believe Most of the Quotes You Read On the Internet
    -Abraham Lincoln

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    You Can’t Believe Most of the Quotes You Read On the Internet
    -Abraham Lincoln

    hehehehehehehehehe

    That was a good one too! :D

  13. [13] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Harry Reid ... *sigh*

  14. [14] 
    michty6 wrote:

    THIS is how the Left thinks...

    It's all the GOP's fault..

    Yes far-right lunatic websites telling you how the left thinks definitely corresponds to how the left thinks! Didn't we (or at least David and I) have this exact conversation last week? About the satanic worshipping Democrats that Rush et al. try to convince America represents 'the left'.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, wait, I meant to say "a lip-synching scandal" was what dominated the airwaves in what passes for "journalism" in America these days. Sigh.

    It's simply an indication of the entire Obama phenom...

    All pomp and show and phony as hell...

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Harry Reid ... *sigh*

    What did Harry The Hero do now?? :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Meh I don't think Reid's compromise was that big a deal. Repub's in the Senate made it pretty clear that they would react very badly to changes in the filibuster. And since the Senate is the only Chamber not run by lunatic, moronic, maniacs - and has to lead the way (read 'hold the hand') of the lunatic Republicans in the House - then keeping them on board is pretty important.

    Last thing America needs just now is TWO Chambers of lunatic Republicans stopping progress. It's bad enough with one...

  18. [18] 
    Americulchie wrote:

    Kudos for picking Harry Reid Most disappointing Democrat of the Week,with a heavy heart I concur.I am of the No Grand Bargain Democrats,the Republicans have done nothing but toss up road blocks to governing,and deserve no reciprocity.2014 is coming and we should be working at defeating Gerry Mander.OFA has shown us all the way.

  19. [19] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [3] -

    Dredd is asexual. He actually has a neice (I think), who he basically shut himself off from, so the bad guys could never use her as leverage (a hostage, for instance). That's when he decided no human relationships at all for him. Including relationships.

    Now Walter the Robot... I could see that. Heh. But not Dredd... like I said, he's asexual.

    -CW

  20. [20] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [8] -

    Don't know about IL, but out here in CA, the Dems just balanced the budget, under Gov. Brown.

    :-)

    -CW

  21. [21] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    BashiBazouk [11] -

    HAH! Now THAT was funny. Was this before or after he became a zombie hunter? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Heh.

    -CW

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [15] -

    Um, no. It's actually a reflection from a very shallow media pool. I mean, THIS is what we're talking about?

    More on shallowness in today's article, later...

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michty6 -

    That's an interesting point of view I hadn't considered. At least there are enough sane Republicans in the Senate to occasionally pass what needs to be passed. And you're right, they were threatening to go absolutely ballistic.

    But I still say Harry should have pushed it through. Let them earn their money. Make them talk.

    Maybe that's just me, though...

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Americulchie -

    Hey there! Long time no see... welcome back!

    :-)

    Nice personification of "Gerry Mander" too... Massachusetts readers who know their state's history will be proud...

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Note to everyone:

    OK, I have been lax at answering comments, so I'm going to dig through all of last week's now. So check all the comment threads in a half and hour or so... and apologies for the backup.

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, got M-W done. Got to write today's article now, I'll have to tackle the long comment thread on Thursday's article tonight.

    Go back and check M-W to see new comments everyone, and sorry about the delay...

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    I hope you'll forgive me if I drag one of your comments from a few days ago and bring it current..

    I think it's an important point..

    Another strawman -- nobody's going to take anyone's guns away. Relax. Ain't gonna happen. Even DiFi's bill has grandfather clauses.

    True..

    But it DOES have a gun registration component..

    Sure, you can keep your rifles..

    But ya gotta register them with the guvment..

    WHY???

    Will gun registration prevent another Sandy Hook massacre??

    Nope...

    The ONLY purpose gun registration serves is as a prelude to confiscation...

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend
    themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

    .Germany established gun control1 in 1938. Jews were not permitted to own guns. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, without the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979 under General Idi Amin Dada, 300,000 Christians and political rivals of Amin, unable to defend them¬selves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Between 1975 and 1993, 2,035,000 "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    How many more MILLIONS of people will have to be slaughtered before the Left realizes that guns are NOT the problem..

    In MANY instances, INCLUDING the birth of this country, guns were part and parcel to the solution..

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The ONLY purpose gun registration serves is as a prelude to confiscation...

    Bullpuckies. Anything to back up your googled copy and paste steaming pile of straw man examples?

    Can you show:

    That any of these groups had enough firearms in their possession to matter?

    What percentage of the guns held by these groups were turned in/confiscated?

    Two counter points: The Weimar Republic had stronger gun regulations that were actually weakened by the Nazis for most citizens. Jews and other groups unpopular with the government obviously excluded.

    In Tzarist Russia gun ownership was legal. This allowed the Bolsheviks to import enough firearms to make the Russian revolution possible...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bullpuckies.

    Where is your evidence to back up your bullpuckies claim??

    Why else would there have to be a gun registration?

    That any of these groups had enough firearms in their possession to matter?

    Sure.

    Got a time machine??

    Jews and other groups unpopular with the government obviously excluded.

    That's exactly the point. It was the Jewish people that were slaughtered...

    In Tzarist Russia gun ownership was legal. This allowed the Bolsheviks to import enough firearms to make the Russian revolution possible...

    Hello?? McFly!!!??

    And what happened AFTER the Russian Revolution??

    Guns were confiscated and made illegal and Stalin etc etc was able to slaughter MILLIONS of people because they had no means to resist..

    But it's ironic. You make the best argument for lax gun laws and why the first step to a police state is gun registration..

    Guns allowed the Bolsheviks to throw off the yoke of a tyrannical government.

    Just like guns allowed this country to be born, throwing off the yoke of a tyrannical king..

    Great argument, Bashi!! :D

    But if you want to forget history (and, by default, be doomed to repeat it) let's look at the here and now..

    Chicago.. Some of the most strict gun laws in the world.. It also has a violent crime rate that is thru the roof...

    Washington DC.. Ditto on both counts..

    Connecticut?? Some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Did those laws prevent Sandy Hook?? No, they did not..

    Mexico. Total gun ban.. One of the most violent countries in the world with gun violence that is astronomically high and getting higher... Of course, the Obama Administration doesn't mind sending MORE guns down south. Ironically, the SAME guns it wants to ban here in the US. Howz THAT for irony??

    Fact after Fact after FACT shows that gun bans and strict gun laws do NOT work..

    Fact after Fact after FACT shows that gun bans and strict gun laws beget the VERY violence and death that they (ostensibly) are put in place to prevent..

    If you want to argue the facts, fine. But for the gods' sake.. Bring some facts of your own!!

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay David,

    "The presence of Obama even on the Press Corps. Even on the people who faun everyday when they're near him they lose their mind sometimes. You know they start behaving in ways that are juvenile and amateurish and they swoon"
    -Michael Hastings, Journalist

    Guess yer not the only one who swoons when thinking about Obama. :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Repub's in the Senate made it pretty clear that they would react very badly to changes in the filibuster.

    michty- Republicans reacting badly? Don't they do this no matter what?

    I think Reid should have gone ahead and made them filibuster.

    I think if they'd of reacted badly it would only have drawn attention to how much the filibuster has been abused by Republicans.

    -David

  32. [32] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, this is probably too obvious, but Batman ...

    http://jeffwinbush.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/robinvsbatmanpk2.gif

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think if they'd of reacted badly it would only have drawn attention to how much the filibuster has been abused by Republicans.

    ... and ATTEMPTED to be used by Democrats..

    Wha?? Do you think that Democrats, after threatening a filibuster, did some soul-searching and said, 'I guess we better not. It wouldn't be good for the country.'???

    Or, is it MORE likely that Democrats can't keep their members together sufficiently to mount a successful filibuster..

    Don't hate the GOP just because they are better at it than Democrats...

    :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    The perfect Immigration Solution...

    1. Illegal immigrants are given a "path" to citizenship..

    2.First and foremost, must step forward and identify themselves as an illegal alien and consent to be placed on an ILLEGALS Database, that is available to all Federal State and Government sources.. At the time of this placement, illegals must take (and pass) a drug test and must provide proof of how long they have been illegally in this country.

    2. A Tax Rate will be established and illegals will be required to pay all "back taxes" on any income that they earned starting from the day of their illegal entry to the US workforce.

    3. If Illegals had fraudulent acquired any Public Assistance benefits during their time as an Illegal alien in this country, they would have to pay back said fraudulently obtained benefits.

    4. ANY criminal record would be grounds for denial and said Illegal would be immediately reported.. In the instances of lesser crime that don't involved violence or drugs, the circumstances of the crime could be relevant to mitigation and/or extenuation.

    5. ALL OF THE AFORE must be established and/or accomplished BEFORE) Illegals begin the process that every other immigrant must follow to be a citizen.. However, exceptions can be granted in the cases of back taxes/benefits owed whereas Illegals can start the legal immigration process concurrently with making the owed back-payments.

    6. If it is discovered that an Illegal made false or mis-leading statements or commits crimes during the immigration process, their application will be summarily denied and Illegal would be deported immediately. As before, if the crimes don't rise to the seriousness of violence or drugs, then extenuating circumstances would be considered. Further, if Illegal falls x number of months behind on their back payments owed, w/o any good/verifiable reasons, then Illegal would have their application summarily denied that they would immediately deported.

    7. If an Illegal re-enters illegally the country after having been deported. They would be given a choice. Such illegal entry would be considered a CLASS B Felony and a minimum sentence of 10 years in a federal prison. Or they can be deported again. If the Illegal is caught a 3rd time illegally in the country, it would be a CLASS A Felony and a minimum sentence of 20yrs in a federal prison would be imposed..

    That's my Immigration Legislation..

    What'chall think???

    It gives a path to citizenship for those who are not lazy and not solely interested in just living off the public dole...

    Personally, I think it's the best immigration plan that ANYONE (Left OR Right) has put forth..

    But I might be a little biased. :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    4. ANY criminal record would be grounds for denial and said Illegal would be immediately reported..

    4. ANY criminal record would be grounds for denial and said Illegal would be immediately DEported..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/29/obama-vs-fox-news-behind-white-house-strategy-to-delegitimize-news-organization/?test=latestnews

    This is an opinion written by a LIBERAL!!

    And again, I find it fascinating that there are people who still believe that the MSM is not in the bag for Obama and the Democrats..

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/29/15-year-old-girl-shot-and-killed-in-kenwood-neighborhood-park/

    Remember...

    Chicago has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the world..

    No Guns do not a safer place make..

    A Gun Free Zone is simply a target rich environment for scumbags...

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    If yer taking applications for next weeks MDDOTW award....

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/29/3207543/fbi-raids-west-palm-beach-office.html

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yeh that socialist President is at it again: "This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."

    He also said "I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."

    When will America learn to stop electing these lefty socialist Presidents.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."

    Despite all evidence to the contrary...

    Mexico comes to mind...

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only thing that a gun ban insures is that ONLY criminals and scumbags will have guns..

    Chicago.. Mexico... Washington DC etc etc etc...

    The list is nearly endless...

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes Mexico is definitely a comparable country to America. LOL.

    I think the socialist lunatic President was right. So did Republicans at the time. Heck even the NRA advocated gun control before they were overhauled and overtaken by radical lunatic right-wing nut jobs.... Funnily enough the Republican party followed down this route a little while later...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes Mexico is definitely a comparable country to America. LOL.

    No it's not..

    Because we have they 2nd Amendment and they have drug cartels...

    All things being equal, I prefer our way better.. :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because we have they 2nd Amendment and they have drug cartels...

    If Mexicans had the 2nd Amendment, then it's likely THEY wouldn't have Drug Cartels either..

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lololol amazing. Keep em coming.

  46. [46] 
    michty6 wrote:

    That socialist President is at it again "While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons".

    What amazes me is that people don't understand the logic used in this socialist President's statement: drying up the supply makes guns less accessible to criminals. Simple supply and demand. Simple logic.

  47. [47] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Hahahahaha speaking of the socialist President Reagan: http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2013/01/30/now-lets-turn-to-politics

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    What amazes me is that people don't understand the logic used in this socialist President's statement: drying up the supply makes guns less accessible to criminals. Simple supply and demand. Simple logic.

    Yet this SAME President didn't blink an eye when sending these weapons to Mexico..

    Are you REALLY *THAT* blind and obtuse??

    The problem isn't the guns...

    Your OWN stats that you have thrown about SHOW that countries with high concentrations of gun owners per capita (Switzerland and Israel) have very low gun violence...

    Countries that have virtual bans on guns have some of the highest gun violence in the world. Mexico for example...

    You really need a new song and dance..

    The idea that guns are the problem has been disproven by facts time and time again...

    Why do you think that a gun ban has absolutely ZERO chance of passing??

    The vast majority of American people are against it...

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yet this SAME President didn't blink an eye when sending these weapons to Mexico..

    Are you REALLY *THAT* blind and obtuse??

    I don't think you know who the socialist President in my quotes is. I call him socialist because that's what he'd be by today's Republican standards. Back in the day (and even now) he was revered by Republicans and seen as a Republican God.

    But when Obama proposes the exact same things: OMG THE EVIL SOCIALIST TYRANT IS COMING TO TAKE OUR GUNS. Just like how you react when Obama proposes the exact same extension of Unemployment Benefits that Mr Socialist President did.

    I find it quite hilarious.

    Why do you think that a gun ban has absolutely ZERO chance of passing??

    The vast majority of American people are against it...

    Wow. You finally presented a TRUE fact regarding guns! I am speechless!

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow. You finally presented a TRUE fact regarding guns! I am speechless!

    That's ALL I have ever produced.

    FACTS..

    Of the two of us, who is more intimately familiar with guns and gun violence?

    Who speaks from experience and who speaks from theory??

    A gun ban will NEVER *EVER* pass Congress.. Even if it did, the vast majority of State and Local LEOs will NOT enforce the laws.. Many states are putting laws on the books that will cause the arrest of ANY Federal authority who attempts to enforce a gun ban..

    There will NEVER be a gun ban in the United States.

    Period.

    So give it up.. It just will not happen..

    You want to end mass shootings??

    Then fight for ending mass shooting galleries, AKA Gun Free Zones...

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    GDP Shows Surprise Drop for US in Fourth Quarter
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100419252

    Welcome to Obama and the Democrats idea of "recovery".....

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    And surprise, surprise...

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/280129-white-house-republicans-responsible-for-gdp-shrink

    It's ALL the Republicans fault..

    Shit, *I* could write the Left's press releases...

    It's always the same old crap..

    Everything bad is the Republicans fault..

    Everything good is because of Democrats...

    Rinse, repeat ad nasuem....

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    Cherry picked correlation does not prove causation.

    We do have drug cartels in this country, we just happen to call them gangs. Mexico does have a "2nd amendment", it's called Article 10. Admittedly it was defanged in the 70's and is now limited to small caliber handguns. But "total gun ban" is definitely not a fact...

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cherry picked correlation does not prove causation.

    True... I simply use the stats that Michty and David have used and point out that there could be MANY interpretations of those states.

    Nevertheless, it stands as factual that many countries that have the largest gun ownership per capita also have some of the lowest gun violence in the world..

    At the VERY least, it should cause the gun control fanatics to at least CONSIDER the possibility that guns are not the problem.

    However, since they ARE fanatics, asking them to think logically and rationally is like asking the sun to rise in the west and set in the east...

    We do have drug cartels in this country, we just happen to call them gangs.

    And if you could show that our "gangs" are as prevalent and violent and in control throughout our nation as the cartels are in Mexico, then you would have a valid point.

    But you can't, so you don't...

    Mexico does have a "2nd amendment", it's called Article 10. Admittedly it was defanged in the 70's and is now limited to small caliber handguns. But "total gun ban" is definitely not a fact...

    Bashi, you REALLY have to stop proving my points! :D It's my job, not yours.

    You give a PERFECT reason why citizens should be allowed to carry the kinds of weapons that they might face in an armed enemy.

    Many of the Gun Control faction make the claim that Mexico is an outlier because of all the cartel violence.

    But what they fail to realize is that the Cartel violence is a DIRECT RESULT of the "de-fanging" of Mexico's Article 10 and the disarming of the general population.

    It's very likely that, had the public NOT been disarmed, the cartels would never have been able to gain the control of the country that they now have..

    An unarmed population is an enslaved population, at the mercy of any tyrannical government or criminal organization.

    History is replete with such examples...

    It's been asked here why would anyone need an "assault" rifle..

    Mexico shows the PERFECT answer to such a question...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as Taxes go???

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/30/look-out-mr-obama-tax-revolt-has-begun-in-america-led-by-mickelson-woods/?intcmp=HPBucket

    Geeee, who would have thunked that raising taxes would cause this??

    Uhhhh Any logical and rational thinking human being...

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Nevertheless, it stands as factual that many countries that have the largest gun ownership per capita also have some of the lowest gun violence in the world.

    Lololololololololololololol.

    I'm organising an intervention. Your fact abuse has gone far enough.

  57. [57] 
    michty6 wrote:

    PS. I notice you didn't respond to any of the socialist President Reagan quotes. But I guess you don't want to remember that the Republican party (and NRA) used to be a more sensible party before they both went whack-job-lunatic-nut-case like today...

  58. [58] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    At the VERY least, it should cause the gun control fanatics to at least CONSIDER the possibility that guns are not the problem.

    However, since they ARE fanatics, asking them to think logically and rationally is like asking the sun to rise in the west and set in the east...

    Is the reverse true for the gun fanatics? Because as hysterical politics goes, the left, the right, or even our local hysterical independent/NGO comes even close to gun nuts. Obama get elected: BUY GUNS!!!. There is a large shooting in the news: BUY GUNS!!!. Obama gets re-elected: BUY GUNS!!!. Gun control is talked about: BUY GUNS!!!. Legislation is proposed: BUY GUNS!!!. Obama goes to the bathroom: BUY GUNS!!!.

    Sometimes I think the gun manufactures must be large contributors to the democrats. Smith & Wesson sees it's sales slump a bit. Calls up their congressman, Hey Bob, sales are down a bit, mind proposing a gun control bill. No problem, James, happy to do it. BUY GUNS!!!

    It's the main reason I would prefer the democrats to STFU about gun control. All it does grossly increase the number of guns in society.

    But to the point, why don't you consider countries like Japan or Singapore that have very strong gun control and very low homicide rates?

    Why don't you include countries like Colombia and Guatemala which do guarantee the right to own guns but have gun homicide rates two to three times Mexico?

    When you list countries like Israel and Switzerland why do you fail to mention that though gun ownership is guaranteed by law the actual regulations of buying and keeping those guns are far more stringent than anything being proposed for the US?

    And if you could show that our "gangs" are as prevalent and violent and in control throughout our nation as the cartels are in Mexico, then you would have a valid point.

    But you can't, so you don't...

    At the moment you are close to being right, The numbers of gang related gun violence is still quite high in America but the drug cartel violence in Mexico is higher. Only for the last few years though. Were you living under a rock during the 80's and 90's? Completely miss the Crips vs Bloods era followed by the rise of other competing gangs? If you look over the last 20 years, you will find drug related gun violence in America competes quite well with Mexico. Personally, I think the reduction of drug violence has more to do with effective law enforcement than gun ownership.

    So, yes. Cherry picked.

  59. [59] 
    michty6 wrote:

    When you list countries like Israel and Switzerland why do you fail to mention that though gun ownership is guaranteed by law the actual regulations of buying and keeping those guns are far more stringent than anything being proposed for the US?

    Or that the US and Switzerland are the only 2 Western countries that have a higher homicide rate from firearms than non-firearms.

    COMPLETELY COINCIDENTALLY they are also no. (1) and (2) in rates of gun ownership among Western countries.

    Also, the media loves to report high gun sales while completely ignoring the record numbers of guns that are handed in/bought back after mass shootings.

  60. [60] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Or that the US and Switzerland are the only 2 Western countries that have a higher homicide rate from firearms than non-firearms.

    I'm not sure how meaningful that is when the UK has an overall homicide rate that is almost double Switzerland's rate. Though still very low by American standards...

    Also, the media loves to report high gun sales while completely ignoring the record numbers of guns that are handed in/bought back after mass shootings.

    Probably somewhat true. Buy backs are usually local news rather than national. But I don't think the numbers are higher than total gun sales over the course of a year...

  61. [61] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yeh I'd be interested in seeing buyback vs sale figures year on year. I would doubt there are any accurate numbers for this though.

    The US actually has a similar non-firearm homicide rate to the UK and Canada. But when you sort the 3 by firearm homicide rates it (again - completely coincidentally!) goes in the order of gun ownership/availability of guns. Kind of kills the 'but the criminals will have guns and go on a shooting spree' argument that you hear often...

  62. [62] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The problem I have with the legislation surrounding shooting spree's is they seem to trend. Currently it's disaffected youth, but 10 - 15 years ago it was disgruntled co-workers. Remember "Gone Postal"? And before that it was random middle aged dudes shooting up fast food joints...

    I think focusing on a single group to pattern legislation around is likely to miss other groups who have also committed these types of tragedies in the past and likely in the future. I'm not sure it's possible to stop. Just the price America has to accept for being a heavily armed society.

  63. [63] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Bashi - Your last sentence is spot on.

    Blaming it on video games or movies or whatever nonsense the NRA is spewing on that particular day is hilarious. It's as if the rest of the world (eg. the UK) doesn't have violent movie games and movies. When in fact the reason why we can have these and not walk around shooting each other is because we don't have the supply of weapons to do so!

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Of course the stats are cherry picked. That's been my whole point.

    The stats are meaningless because they can support BOTH arguments..

    So, what's left??

    Common sense..

    And common sense dictates that you don't take the means of defense away from law-abiding citizens due to the actions of a few mental cases..

    But I do agree with you that the anti-gun fanatics are their own worst enemy when it comes to their campaign..

    And yes, there are a few pro-gun fanatics...

    But the anti-gun crowd is COMPLETELY made of fanatics..

    Do you know how we know this?

    Because their ENTIRE argument is based in hysterical emotion. Which is why we only hear from them when there is a tragedy to capitalize on...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]