ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [364] -- New Speaker's Speaking Problem

[ Posted Friday, October 2nd, 2015 – 17:43 PDT ]

Kevin McCarthy is not worthy. Of using the English language correctly, among other things. Amusingly, though, this will likely not stop him from becoming the next speaker of the House. And if his past is any prologue, hearing the speaker speak should provide all sorts of amusement for the rest of us. It may not be the return of the garbled George W. Bush era of mangled English, but it could be close.

Without getting into the fallout of his recent announcement that Republicans had indeed convened the Benghazi committee to politically take Hillary Clinton down a few pegs, his statement led up to a key pronouncement: "She's untrustable." Um... "untrustable"? Is that anything like "non-trustally-minded"? Or maybe "distrustacious"? How about "untrustalicious"? I mean, the English language is flexible, so if the poetry muse strikes, why not come up with something even more hilarious to the late-night comics, such as perhaps "atrustadonkadonk"? Hillary Clinton might not be trustworthy, but Kevin McCarthy is just plain not worthy of being anybody's "speaker," really.

Think this is too strong a statement? Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has been capturing McCarthy's mangled oratory for a while, now. Here is McCarthy speaking last year, on a charter-school bill: "This is a great strength of a change making an equalizer inside for economy throughout." O-o-o-kay. Got it. I think.

Here's Milbank again, recording some of the more amusing gaffes from a speech McCarthy was recently giving off of prepared notes (in other words not ad-libbed, or anything):

In McCarthy's Monday address, Russia's hybrid warfare became "high-bred warfare," and restrictions on U.S. energy shipments became "the band on America." He spoke of the "beth path forward to safety and security"; he asserted that Syria's regime uses chemical weapons "to the very day"; he argued that the Soviet Union collapsed "because of America's leadership and America resolve." And he memorably rephrased the famous question asked of Republican presidential candidates: "Would you have gone to war if you knew what you knew now?"

From earlier in the article came these gems:

McCarthy called for "an effective politically strategy to match the military strategy," and he lamented that "we have isolated Israel while bolding places like Iran." He blamed President Obama's White House for "putting us in tough decisions for the future," but he voiced hope that a "safe zone would create a stem the flow of refugees." And he scolded the Department of Veterans Affairs for failing to assist returning servicemen "who fought to the death in Ramadi."

Hoo boy. Can't wait to see who gets to play him on Saturday Night Live.

Speaking of SNL, and speaking of mangling lines, and also speaking of Hillary Clinton (that's what's known as a triple-segue, folks), Hillary will reportedly be doing a cameo tomorrow night in the "cold open" sketch, to kick off another season of Saturday Night Live. Speaking for SNL fans everywhere, I hope she's had some training in how to deliver the opening line, which she muffed last time (which we pointed out way back in FTP [22]) in what could almost be described as Rainier Wolfcastle fashion ("Up and at them"...). For the love of all that's holy, won't someone on Team Hillary please get her to practice saying "it's" instead of "it is" to open the show? We'll see... tomorrow night... live from New York.

Clinton is already having a pretty good week, thanks to the aforementioned McCarthy. During an interview, McCarthy flat-out admitted that the entire Benghazi investigation (which has now gone on longer than any congressional investigation in history -- including Watergate) was nothing more than a cheap political stunt to inflict as much political damage on Clinton as humanly possible. Here's his quote:

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.

This confirms what Clinton's been saying all along, that the entire exercise is nothing more than a personal and political vendetta against her. Benghazi has already been investigated seven or eight times, and no wrongdoing has been found by each and every investigation. And yet, House Republicans are investigating again, because they can. Clinton will be appearing before the House committee to answer questions later this month, and that task just got a whole lot easier after McCarthy's "Kinsley gaffe" (defined as: "accidentally speaking the truth in Washington").

In other congressional-vendetta-hearing news, the head of Planned Parenthood acquitted herself well against the combined wrath of Republicans busily creating campaign quotes, trying to outdo each other as to how rude they could be towards the witness. Nothing much came of it, because Planned Parenthood is not breaking any laws, as multiple state investigations have shown. The entire exercise was supposed to be part and parcel of a government shutdown showdown over Planned Parenthood funding, but due to John Boehner resigning, this was postponed until the Christmas shopping season. So we've all got that to look forward to, ten weeks from now.

There was yet another shooting rampage on a college campus this week, but since this has become almost a regular event -- and since absolutely nothing will be done about it politically -- it seems pointless to rehash all the arguments. President Obama gave a statement expressing his frustration and anger over the lack of political will to change anything, but that too is (sadly) becoming almost a regular event.

In marijuana news, California may soon have five competing ballot initiatives on legalizing recreational marijuana, including the one everyone's been waiting for from a coalition of marijuana reform organizations. The other four will likely not gain the signatures needed to actually get on the ballot, so the coalition's proposed ballot initiative will likely be the one to watch. In Oregon, legal recreational marijuana sales have now begun, making it the third state to do so (Alaska and Washington D.C. have also passed legalization laws, but have not started legal sales yet).

More interestingly, a South Dakota tribe has just announced that they will soon be selling legal recreational marijuana at their casino. I wrote about this upcoming phenomenon earlier this year, pointing out that over 100 tribes had expressed interest in selling marijuana on tribal lands. This includes -- as is the case in South Dakota -- tribes which are located in states which have not legalized recreational marijuana's use. This is all the result of a surprising decision by the Justice Department last year which cleared the way for federally-recognized tribes to sell marijuana in the same way Colorado, Washington, and Oregon now do -- without fear of federal reprisals.

So far, except for D.C., all the states to legalize have been far to the west of the Mississippi River. Marijuana tourism is therefore a major undertaking for the tens of millions of people who live on the East Coast. Even South Dakota isn't all that much closer than Colorado, and it isn't exactly an airline hub -- meaning it wouldn't be any cheaper to travel to, for most folks. But if a few East Coast tribes start legal marijuana sales, they are almost guaranteed an enormous windfall due to the relative ease of getting there (at least until the practice becomes so common that legal marijuana is a short drive away for just about everybody). This could drive the legalization movement a lot faster than many expect, as the East Coast states start eyeing how much money is being made (and could be made, through taxation) on the reservations. It will indeed be interesting to see how this all develops.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Before we get to the main award, we have to give Senator Elizabeth Warren an Honorable Mention for taking down a corporate shill at a liberal think tank. Robert Lutan took a bunch of money from a corporate client, wrote a report criticizing one of Warren's consumer protection rules which targeted the financial services industry, so Warren called him out on it. He apparently did the report on his own time, but also tried to give insinuate it had the imprimatur of the Brookings Institution. By week's end, he was gone from Brookings. Let this be a lesson to all think-tankers: take corporate bribes at your own risk!

But our real Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week was, once again, Senator Bernie Sanders.

Sanders has had to work hard to get his message out, because he's been almost entirely blacked-out of any mention on broadcast television's evening news shows. I wrote about this earlier this week, but the basic statistics are: Total time ABC, CBS, and NBC have devoted to covering the presidential campaign so far -- 504 minutes. Total time devoted to Donald Trump's campaign: 145 minutes. Total time for Hillary Clinton (not even including coverage about the email scandal, which clocked in at an additional 83 minutes): 82 minutes. Total time for Jeb Bush: 43 minutes. Total time for Bernie Sanders: 8 minutes. That's a pretty stark assessment of how seriously the media has taken Bernie's campaign so far.

Meanwhile, Bernie just set a new record for how early any presidential candidate has gotten over one million donations. Barack Obama famously had huge online donor support, but he didn't reach this point until February of 2008 -- a full four months after the mark Bernie has now set. Bernie's getting tiny donations, but he's getting a whole lot of them. He doesn't do much formal fundraising, and even when he does he charges sums like $100 to attend, rather than thousands and thousands of dollars. This gives Bernie a big advantage, actually, because while other candidates quickly max donors out (there's a limit to how much individuals can give to a campaign), Bernie can keep going back to his supporters for more small donations -- which is effective because he's got so many of them.

The truly stunning news wasn't how many donations Bernie has received -- which, by the way, can be described as "more donations than any other candidate in the race, from either party" -- but rather his fundraising total for the third quarter. While Hillary Clinton raised $28 million, Bernie Sanders was right behind at $26 million. Hillary, however, has been burning through her money rather quickly, while Bernie has kept most of his in the bank for now, which means that they're pretty close to even when it comes to cash on hand.

This is unbelievably impressive, especially for a candidate who only garnered a little more than 1.5 percent of the available broadcast television news time so far. Bernie Sanders was supposed to be some sort of quixotic or gadfly campaign, which got ultra-lefties excited but wouldn't have any sort of wide support or staying power. It was supposed to be a quaint little political science experiment by a goofy guy from Vermont -- in other words, the second coming of Howard Dean. But so far, Bernie has exceeded expectations on just about every level imaginable. He draws the biggest crowds of any presidential candidate (bigger than Trump's, even), he has gotten more donations than any other candidate, and he is drawing even with Hillary Clinton not only in the polls but now also in the fundraising. Clinton may continue to ignore Sanders, but our guess is that the mainstream media won't be able to do so for much longer.

This week, the choice for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award is pretty obvious. Bernie Sanders campaign has defied all odds so far, and it looks like it will continue to do so for some time to come. More and more people are "feeling the Bern" these days, it appears.

[We do not link to campaign sites as a general rule, but you can congratulate Senator Bernie Sanders on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We have to say we're a little disappointed in Vice President Joe Biden's ongoing game of "Will he or won't he?" Earlier this year, Biden said he'd make the decision whether to run for president or not "by the end of the summer." This then became "by the end of September." Everyone assumed he'd have to announce before the deadline for entry into the first debate, but CNN now says he's welcome on stage even if he announces earlier the same day. Now the timeline has stretched to "maybe by late October." But the waiting game is counterproductive, whether you want to see Biden run or not. If he's going to run, he's got to get going -- the first caucus is now only four months away. If he isn't going to run, then he's got to clear the field for a two-person race between Clinton and Sanders. Either way, the time has come to make up your mind, Joe.

Our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who just announced he'll be stepping down before the end of Obama's term in office.

Arne Duncan has been a massive disappointment for many -- most of them teachers and others who care about the education issue. Want to know why Arne Duncan is so disappointing? Ask a teacher. His support of dubious federal schemes (charter schools being the most prominently odious) has earned him nothing but scorn from teachers across America, most of whom would have liked to see him retire long before now.

A few years back, I ran a column (with a scathing cartoon, even!) from a guest author, Joshua L. Eisenstein, Ph.D., who laid out a pretty stunning case against Duncan and the Obama Education Department in general. So if you're unsure why we're giving Arne Duncan a parting MDDOTW award, check that link out.

If the universe were just, Duncan would have to stay after school for a few years, writing a bazillion times on a chalkboard: "Charter schools do no better than traditional schools, they just destroy teachers' unions," but we'll have to settle for seeing the door hit his rear on the way out.

[Contact Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on the official Department of Education contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 364 (10/2/15)

Rather a mixed bunch, this week. While most of these can be used by just about anyone, we'd really like to see the fifth one used in a broadcast television interview of a Democratic officeholder, because public shaming is precisely what is called for to change this particular situation.

 

1
   Avoid all shutdowns!

This falls into the category of "makes too much sense to ever happen," probably.

"I see we averted another government shutdown, but we'll be facing another one of these self-inflicted crises again right before Christmas. Representative Alan Grayson has a great idea which would end this nonsense forever, but so far this fantastic idea has gone precisely nowhere. Grayson's bill -- H.R.1776 -- would free America from ever having to pay the price for Republican tantrums in Congress. Congress could pass budget bills the same way they do now, whether before, during, or after a fiscal deadline. But if they failed to meet the deadline, the entire federal budget would continue to be funded under whatever previous amounts were already in place. That's it -- one simple change. No budget in place? Well then, federal spending continues on autopilot. It wouldn't change a thing -- Congress could still pass a new budget whenever they got around to actually doing their jobs -- but in the meantime, the money would still be there for the government to continue to operate. Hate all these budget dramas? Call your representative or senator, and demand they support Grayson's bill."

 

2
   This is progress?

Just to put what happened into perspective....

"So we just averted another shutdown, and everyone in Congress seems to be patting themselves on the back for a job well done. This is preposterous! Getting a stopgap bill through took the resignation of the speaker of the House, and it only bought us another 10 weeks before we face yet another shutdown threat from the vocal minority in the Republican Party. This is progress? This is a job well done? A speaker of the House throwing himself on his sword just to gain two and a half months? None of the issues have actually been resolved, and we're going to have a huge budget fight right in the middle of the holiday season. Boy, Congress should really be proud of itself!"

 

3
   Living in glass houses

Nothing like the sanctimonious being shown to have feet of clay, is there?

"I see that Indiana House Majority Leader Jud McMillin has just resigned, making him the most recent in a long line of Republicans who live in glass houses while chucking stones at others with abandon. This is a guy who cosponsored Indiana's 'religious freedom' law so that all people who get sanctimonious about how they revere marriage can legally discriminate against others. But apparently McMillin didn't revere his own marriage very much. It seems a sexually-explicit video of McMillin and a woman who was not in fact his legal wife was blasted out to everyone on his 'contacts' list. He later claimed his phone 'was stolen in Canada' and was out of his control 'for about 24 hours.' Salon amusingly called this the 'Canadian girlfriend stole my phone' defense, but it didn't work for McMillin. Once again, a Republican who crusaded to 'protect the institution of marriage' has announced that he will now have to 'spend more time with his family' as he makes his hypocritical exit from public life."

 

4
   That's an awfully big cat, Kevin

I'm sure the Clinton campaign will have some prime snark about this one.

"Kevin McCarthy, the man who will likely become the next speaker of the House, just let a rather large cat out of the bag. He admitted on national television that the entire Benghazi investigation was nothing more than a partisan pre-emptive attack on Hillary Clinton's political prospects. He actually sounds proud of the fact that he's been wasting taxpayer money on this witchhunt, even after six or seven other investigations found precisely nothing. Anyone with half a brain could see that this was the real reason behind launching yet another investigation -- attacking Hillary's polling numbers, as McCarthy just boasted. But while everyone knew this was the case, Republicans were never supposed to actually come out and admit the truth in such blunt language. This wasn't some fluffy little kitten McCarthy just let out of the bag -- it was more like a saber-toothed tiger. If this is what we can expect from McCarthy, then I look forward to hearing him interviewed in the future, on all kinds of issues."

 

5
   The Rodney Dangerfield of candidates

I admit I already used this line in an earlier column this week.

"Bernie Sanders is the Rodney Dangerfield of presidential candidates, because he don't get no respect from the media. He's running a close second nationally to Hillary Clinton, he's ahead of her in the polls from Iowa and New Hampshire, and he just announced he raised pretty much the same amount of money she did in the previous quarter. Sanders draws bigger crowds than anyone in the field from either party, and his poll numbers among Democrats are better than the polling of every Republican candidate among their own party's voters -- with the exception of Donald Trump. And yet, out of 504 minutes -- that's almost eight and a half hours total -- of broadcast network coverage of the presidential campaign to date, precisely eight minutes have been devoted to Bernie's campaign. That's pathetic. As Rodney Dangerfield would say, Bernie don't get no respect."

 

6
   Reverse Robin Hood tax policy still popular among GOP

Donald Trump released his tax plan this week. It bore certain similarities to all the other Republican candidates' tax plans.

"Donald Trump has now released his tax plan, and just like Jeb Bush's and all the other Republican candidates (who have bothered to come up with any plan at all), it will solve income inequality by showering larger and larger tax breaks upon the wealthy. That's right, folks, the way to combat inequality in America is to give the rich folks more and more money -- that's obviously going to solve the problem, right? I mean, it's worked so well in the past...."

 

7
   Vote for Santa Claus!

And finally, a historic candidacy from the far north.

"I see that Santa Claus is running for city council in North Pole, Alaska. Boy, the jokes just write themselves on that one. I mean, you just can't make this stuff up, folks. After all, who would vote against a man who knew whether you'd been naughty or nice?"

-- 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

 

88 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [364] -- New Speaker's Speaking Problem”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Without getting into the fallout of his recent announcement that Republicans had indeed convened the Benghazi committee to politically take Hillary Clinton down a few pegs,

    Actually, that is not what he said at all.. But why quibble about silly things like facts, eh? :D

    As to the rest of the McCarthy thing..

    Grammar lames?? Seriously?? :D

    This confirms what Clinton's been saying all along, that the entire exercise is nothing more than a personal and political vendetta against her.

    Again, McCarthy said nothing of the sort..

    But again, facts?? Bah who needs 'em! :D

    There was yet another shooting rampage on a college campus this week, but since this has become almost a regular event -- and since absolutely nothing will be done about it politically -- it seems pointless to rehash all the arguments. President Obama gave a statement expressing his frustration and anger over the lack of political will to change anything, but that too is (sadly) becoming almost a regular event.

    And nothing WILL change until Democrats actually want to fix the problem and not the blame..

    Getting rid of Psycho Shooting Galleries (AKA Gun Free Zones) will go a LONG way towards curbing mass shooting deaths..

    Ever hear of a mass shooting at a gun range or a cop bar??

    There is a reason for that...

    We have to say we're a little disappointed in Vice President Joe Biden's ongoing game of "Will he or won't he?" Earlier this year, Biden said he'd make the decision whether to run for president or not "by the end of the summer." This then became "by the end of September." Everyone assumed he'd have to announce before the deadline for entry into the first debate, but CNN now says he's welcome on stage even if he announces earlier the same day. Now the timeline has stretched to "maybe by late October." But the waiting game is counterproductive, whether you want to see Biden run or not. If he's going to run, he's got to get going -- the first caucus is now only four months away. If he isn't going to run, then he's got to clear the field for a two-person race between Clinton and Sanders. Either way, the time has come to make up your mind, Joe.

    Credit where credit is due..

    You made the same observation about Clinton when she played the same game..

    That's what I like about you, CW.. For all intents and purposes, you are pretty consistent.. :D

    Our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who just announced he'll be stepping down before the end of Obama's term in office.

    Arne Duncan has been a massive disappointment for many -- most of them teachers and others who care about the education issue. Want to know why Arne Duncan is so disappointing? Ask a teacher. His support of dubious federal schemes (charter schools being the most prominently odious) has earned him nothing but scorn from teachers across America, most of whom would have liked to see him retire long before now.

    Joshua is gonna LOVE ya for this one! :D heh

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    OK, I'll bite... how do you interpret McCarthy's plain language? Hit me with your spin, baby!

    As for Joshua... is nypoet22 still out there listening? Hello???

    Heh.

    Program Note:

    The Rainier Wolfcastle "up and at them" link seems to be having some problems on my computer. Anyone else have problems?

    To see the clip, go to You Tube and search for "Wolfcastle up and at them" and it'll pop up... this was The Simpsons bit that first popped into my mind when I saw Hillary blow the "Live, from New York, it's Saturday Night" line, many moons ago....

    :-)

    -CW

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Here's a conservative, from WashPost, who doesn't buy into the spin:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-mccarthyism-is-dead-on-arrival/2015/10/02/a7615972-6949-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html

    Enjoy!

    :-)

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I'll bite... how do you interpret McCarthy's plain language? Hit me with your spin, baby!

    Basically, all McCarthy said was, "Everyone thought Hillary was unbeatable but the Benghazi Hearings proved that this is not true.."...

    Or, even more succintly, "Hillary's poll numbers are going down and the reason is because of the Benghazi hearings..

    At NO POINT, does McCarthy say that the GOAL of the Benghazi hearings was to bring down Clinton..

    McCarthy simply pointed to the fact that Clinton's numbers are going down and the reason why they are going down is the Benghazi hearings and all the revelations that have come from those hearings..

    No spin, just the facts..

    I am wracking my brain to come up with a suitable analogy to illustrate this.. I'll let ya know when I have a good one..

    As for Joshua... is nypoet22 still out there listening? Hello???

    Oh yea, he's around.. We had a nice (but short) debate a bit ago regarding the TRUST issue that is dragging down Democrats...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/09/25/ftp363/#comment-64595

    The Rainier Wolfcastle "up and at them" link seems to be having some problems on my computer. Anyone else have problems?

    Yea, same here..

    Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. Please try your request again later. Why did this happen?

    IP address: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
    Time: 2015-10-03T06:04:32Z
    URL: http://www.google.com/

    Wierd.. I have never seen that before...

    I have been having some Win10/Malware issues on my home machines...

    I'll try it on my systems at the shop and report back...

    -CW

    -CW

    Heh...

    Don't tell me, let me guess.. You typed up your comment and signed it.. While re-reading it, you thought of something else, typed that in and then signed it again..

    Happens to me a lot.. heh

    Michale

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww carp!!!!

    :(

    CW, I have a 2-link comment.. Would ya mind??

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it this way...

    Was the goal and intent of the Democrat's Iraq War II hearings to bring down Bush and stick it to him??

    Well, no.. According to Democrats, the reason for the hearings was to get to the facts of the errors and hold those who committed those errors accountable..

    According to Republicans, those hearings were nothing but a witch hunt..

    You see how spin works?? :D The facts are usually somewhere in between...

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another example??

    Was the Hiroshima/Nagasaki attacks an act of terrorism??

    No, it was a legitimate military operation against legitimate military targets..

    The fact that hundreds of thousands of "innocent" people were killed is unfortunate, but it wasn't the intent..

    So it is with the Benghazi hearings. The INTENT of the Benghazi hearings is to get to the facts of the errors and hold those who committed the errors accountable..

    The fact that it also brings down such a liar and a cheat as Hillary Clinton is a fortunate happenstance..

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the foreign policy front, a mixed bag..

    Obama is getting his clock cleaned....

    "Yes, but what if you precipitate an interstellar war?"
    "Then, Mr President, we will clean their chronometers.."

    -Star Trek VI, THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY

    :D

    .... in Syria by Putin... It's nice to see a president.. a REAL leader stand up and take REAL action in Syria... Unfortunately, it's not OUR president that is doing it.. :^/

    On the other side of the globe, Obama has taken the leash off our US Navy and will institute FON exercises near China's island chain... Nice ta see that our president hasn't forgotten that he HAS a military...

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Program Note:

    The Rainier Wolfcastle "up and at them" link seems to be having some problems on my computer. Anyone else have problems?

    Same thing happened here at my shop workstations..

    Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. Please try your request again later. Why did this happen?

    IP address: xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx
    Time: 2015-10-03T08:02:50Z
    URL: http://www.google.com/

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns
    http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

    So ends the Left Wing myth that those who conceal carry never save lives...

    The solution to mass shootings is simple..

    But the Left has to play politics rather than actually doing something constructive that is PROVEN to work...

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nothing like the sanctimonious being shown to have feet of clay, is there?

    "I see that Indiana House Majority Leader Jud McMillin has just resigned, making him the most recent in a long line of Republicans who live in glass houses while chucking stones at others with abandon. This is a guy who cosponsored Indiana's 'religious freedom' law so that all people who get sanctimonious about how they revere marriage can legally discriminate against others. But apparently McMillin didn't revere his own marriage very much. It seems a sexually-explicit video of McMillin and a woman who was not in fact his legal wife was blasted out to everyone on his 'contacts' list. He later claimed his phone 'was stolen in Canada' and was out of his control 'for about 24 hours.' Salon amusingly called this the 'Canadian girlfriend stole my phone' defense, but it didn't work for McMillin. Once again, a Republican who crusaded to 'protect the institution of marriage' has announced that he will now have to 'spend more time with his family' as he makes his hypocritical exit from public life."

    And yet... Bill Clinton is still revered amongst Democrats..

    Anyone wanna address this inconsistency??

    No??

    Didn't think so... :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    There was yet another shooting rampage on a college campus this week, but since this has become almost a regular event -- and since absolutely nothing will be done about it politically -- it seems pointless to rehash all the arguments. President Obama gave a statement expressing his frustration and anger over the lack of political will to change anything, but that too is (sadly) becoming almost a regular event.

    I'll let the icons of history speak for me...

    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
    -George Washington

    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”
    –George Washington

    "Americans have the advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
    -James Madison

    "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."
    -Patrick Henry

    "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    -George Mason (wasn't he Jack Bauer's boss??)

    "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
    -Samual Adams (The beer guy??)

    "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
    -Alexander Hamilton

    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
    -Richard Henry Lee

    "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
    –Patrick Henry

    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
    -Mahatma Gandhi

    'nuff said...

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    8 It's not nice to punk the pope.

  14. [14] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    OT, but here's an opinion piece for you in case you didn't see it

    It's worth noting that he left out any questions about when our efforts began, and who is directly arming al Qaida... not to mention the logistics.

    David Bromwich
    Professor of Literature, Yale University

    Syria, the Times and the Mystery of the "Moderate Rebels"
    Posted: 10/02/2015 9:32 pm EDT

    "After a two-year absence from the international stage -- during which the mainstream media dispatched them to the realm of nonexistent entities -- on October 1 the "moderate rebels" of Syria were back. The New York Times said so. Russian attacks were targeting moderates rather than ISIS, a man with a camera was quoted saying; and the Times story by Anne Barnard appeared to confirm his suspicion; even as a companion report on Russian actions in Syria by Helene Cooper, Michael R. Gordon, and Neil MacFarquhar revealed that these are the same moderates who were carefully vetted by the CIA, and concerning whom little was heard ever after. Their numbers are put at 3,000 to 5,000, though the Cooper-Gordon-MacFarquhar article leaves uncertain if that is their original or their present strength. This illumination, after so long a blackout, will doubtless be a subject for inquiry in coming days. Why it would seem worthwhile for the Russians to attack so small a force, neither of the Times stories bothered to say; nor did they explain why, if the moderate rebels are anti-Jihadist, they were allowed to garrison in the town of Talbiseh in a region north of Homs that (according to the veteran Middle East reporter Patrick Cockburn) has been "ruled" for the past two years "by Jabhat al-Nusra and associated extreme Islamist groups."

    One cannot help being struck, in the Barnard story, by a disparity between the thinness of the evidence and the cocksure tone of the analysis. Consider the single piece of local testimony (generically confirmed by US sources) that is used to get us to take on trust a rebel's characterization of himself:

    Among the areas hit was the base of a group that had been supported and supplied by the United States and its allies, said its leader, Jamil Saleh. He said the group's base had been hit severely in Hama Province, wounding eight of his men. Later on Wednesday, American officials confirmed that some groups supported by the United States had been hit.

    "We are on the front lines with Bashar Al-Assad's army," said Mr. Saleh, whose group has recently posted videos of its fighters using sophisticated American-made TOW missiles to destroy government tanks. "We are moderate Syrian rebels and have no affiliation with ISIS. ISIS is at least 100 kilometers away from where we are."

    But ISIS is not the only enemy of American interests in Syria and Iraq, and it is not the only terrorist entity the US government is pledged to defeat. How close are the moderate rebels to al-Nusra? Again, the Times story does not ask.

    An editorial tailwind carried the paper's fascination with the moderate rebels into a second day of coverage on October 2. A story by Barnard and MacFarquhar, "Vladimir Putin Plunges into a Caldron in Syria," speculates that Putin's entry into the war will push "independent Islamists" to ally themselves with al-Nusra, and hence presumably will take them a degree closer to ISIS. "One previously independent Islamist brigade declared its allegiance to the Nusra Front, saying unity was necessary because America and Russia were allied against Muslims 'to blur the light of truth.'" Once more, there is a nagging hint of unasked questions. What exactly is an "independent Islamist"? How close was this brigade to the "democratic values" that America espouses? Indeed, how close could it have been if the allure of al-Nusra was just a bombing attack away?

    As it happens, the most damaging words ever spoken about the moderate rebels came from President Obama, in an interview with Thomas Friedman fourteen months ago. The president, displaying a candor that is intermittent with him but remarkable when it occurs, said the idea of a Syrian "moderate rebel" force was the sort of miracle cure that Americans dream up when we come to a section of the world we cannot manage:

    It's always been a fantasy, this idea that we could provide some light arms, or even more sophisticated arms, to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists, and so forth, and that that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state, but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah. That was never in the cards.

    The "moderate rebels" are a good deal like the Third Force once dreamed of by the architects of the Vietnam War, as an alternative to the French colonial government and the communist Viet Minh. The US found an "independent" ally in the corrupt anti-communist Ngo Dinh Diem but eventually had him deposed and killed. The upright democratic allies on the ground only existed in numbers too weak to count politically or militarily; nor could the CIA in Vietnam conjure them out of thin air; and a failure of rational doubt set the United States on the long downward spiral of that war.

    The truth is that Obama when he spoke those words confessed the self-contradiction of his own policy. For his administration continues to harbor enthusiasts of the Third Force idea like Susan Rice and Samantha Power, alongside persons of a less romantic temper such as Vice President Biden and Denis McDonough. When, in August 2011, Obama said that Assad must go and implied that he must go immediately, he was commanding beyond his power to enforce, and he had nobody in view to replace Assad. The same enthusiasts had already goaded him to commit US power and prestige to the destruction of the government of Libya, without any plan for what would succeed that government. The catastrophe that followed has been so complete that for two years now the word Libya has hardly been uttered by the president; but it must be part of what he thinks of, looking back, when he considers some new piece of high strategic advice on Syria.

    During his recent encounter with Vladimir Putin at the UN, Obama conceded that America could approve a "managed transition" from the Assad government to an interim government -- that is, a transition with a middle phase to smooth the exit of the detested autocrat. This would be preferable, he meant, to the direct transition from despotic rule to violent anarchy, such as occurred in both Iraq and Libya. Yet a gradual transition had been offered (so long as immediate departure by Assad was not made a precondition) during John Kerry's visit to Moscow in May 2013; and Kerry's counterpart, the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, said at the time that Russia was not interested in the fate of Assad so much as that of Syria. Look at the distance between Moscow and Damascus, compare the distance between Washington and Damascus, and you can imagine why a Russian might see things that way. Russia is part of Asia; for us, an ocean intervenes. In any case, the second chemical attack of 2013 followed soon after the Kerry-Lavrov initiative, and Obama threatened to bomb -- a sequence of events that could not have scuttled the negotiations more neatly if it had been devised for the purpose.

    Now it is 2015, and other regional powers are allied with Russia in fighting against the Islamists, but the New York Times is nostalgic for 2003. Michael Gordon is writing some of the articles once again, and is acting as a filter for other articles that he co-signs; and it is appropriate for readers to take him with exactly as much trust as we should have accorded to his reports of WMD in Iraq. An article on October 2 by Anne Barnard and Andrew E. Kramer -- the most honest of the four Times reports over the past two days -- levels at last with a dry assessment of the Russian motives for entering the fight against ISIS and the Islamist insurgents. It speaks of the same group that the paper just five weeks earlier had called Ahrar al-Sham, under a new and more palatable name, "the Army of Conquest":

    Often fighting alongside the Army of Conquest are relatively secular groups from what is left of the loose-knit Free Syrian Army, including some groups that have received United States training and advanced American-made antitank missiles. At least one group trained by the C.I.A. was among the targets hit on Wednesday, which drew an angry response from Washington.

    Here one finds the beginning of a picture of the rebels in context, a picture that suggests the wildness of the American attempt to assert our will on this terrain. Barnard and Kramer continue:

    But the Army of Conquest itself embodies the ambivalence of American policy. The United States considers the Nusra Front a terrorist organization, but other groups, including some that have received American funding, fight alongside the Nusra Front, saying that they have no choice if they want to unseat Mr. Assad.

    The article closes with John Kerry's warning that Russia must not attack any fighting organization except ISIS. But how have we ever known exactly where ISIS is? ISIS stole a march on the US and its allies in both Iraq and Syria. Everything that US authorities have said about their progress and their location has proved unreliable.

    "Who Is Fighting Whom?" Such was the question posed by a Times analytic chart at the breaking of the first news of Russian entry into the Syrian war. The US, France, and Britain are said to support "More moderate elements among the rebel forces in Syria." That is one way of putting it; another way is "less extreme"; and these two phrases recur in the self-portraits of the Islamist commanders who want continued US support and subsidy. The ambivalence of the Times echoes the ambivalence of US policy as described by the Times. Both the government and the newspaper that sets the pattern for the mainstream media have taught us that al-Qaeda is the sworn enemy of US interests; that al-Nusra is the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda; and that a pact with either terrorist sect, even for the sake of fighting against ISIS, would be desperate and self-destructive. But we are urged at the same time to suppose -- the complicated relationships of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Israel encourage it -- that al-Nusra is perhaps a milder version of al-Qaeda and that both are necessary allies in the titanic struggle to overthrow Assad and defeat ISIS in a single stroke. The sheer quantity of self-deception that is required to support this fantasy ought to be obvious; but the fantasy will tempt us until our leaders break once and for all with the dreamers of the Third Force."

  15. [15] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    Your whataboutery is a troll classic.

    What about this?
    What about that?

    If you could address the issue, you wouldn't be trying to change the subject.

    altohone

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biga,

    Which issue are you referring to??

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Edit needed-
    "He apparently did the report on his own time, but also tried to give insinuate it had the imprimatur of the Brookings Institution"

    Give got in there somehow.

    Bernie sure is shocking the establishment.
    You mentioned Iowa and New Hampshire and the closing gap nationally, but let's not forget Vermont where he may win a unanimous vote in the Dem primary and is even leading the pack in the Repub primary polls???, and supposedly (RCP doesn't show it) he is leading in Oregon too.

    I'm glad you mentioned the cash on hand figures.
    Hillary spending three times as much as Bernie only to lose ground has got to be unnerving for her team.

    I'm also glad you mentioned Biden playing games.
    He is already so far behind in both the polls and developing a ground game, it's hard to imagine he could successfully compete at this point.
    If there's a strategy behind his stalling, it doesn't seem to be a good one.

    The GOP Benghazi nonsense being exposed is overdue.
    But from what I've seen, it's also mostly irrelevant to Dem voters... it doesn't ever come up when people are asked why they're supporting Bernie. It may be that Repubs are patting themselves on the back claiming credit when Hillary shooting herself in the foot is the real reason for her high negatives.

    Keep up the good work.
    A

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biga,

    If you could address the issue, you wouldn't be trying to change the subject.

    Which issue are you referring to??

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you could address the issue, you wouldn't be trying to change the subject.

    Which issue are you referring to??

    Yea... That's what I thought.... :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm also glad you mentioned Biden playing games.
    He is already so far behind in both the polls and developing a ground game, it's hard to imagine he could successfully compete at this point.
    If there's a strategy behind his stalling, it doesn't seem to be a good one.

    The funny thing about Biden is that his poll numbers are RISING...

    And he ain't even declared yet!! :D

    Gonna make my prediction now...

    Biden WILL jump into the race..

    And Biden WILL be the Democrat Candidate for POTUS..

    But he only has a chance of winning the general if he takes Warren as his VP..

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Getting back to the gun issue..

    It's actually quite hilarious...

    https://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/obama-gun-salesman-of-the-year-firearms-salesman-of-the-century-sad-hill-news-1.jpg

    Obama is the biggest gun salesman in the history of this country.. :D

    But seriously, folks..

    Answer me one question and I'll never say another word about guns....

    What reasonable law would you people put in place to prevent a UCC or a Sandy Hook or a Charleston or a Columbine??

    Here's your chance to shut me up on this issue..

    Don't blow it.. :D

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Getting back to Foreign Policy..

    OBAMA ASSISTS PUTIN IN DISMANTLING NATO
    http://freebeacon.com/columns/the-coming-defeat-of-nato/

    The scary thing about that is how credibly easy it could happen...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's strange...

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/assad-says-syria-allies-defeat-terrorism-failure-devastating-121819236.html

    I thought some world leader had stated a bit ago that Assad's "...days are numbered"...

    Boy, I bet that world leader feels like an absolute MORON right now, eh!?? :D

    heh

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought some world leader had stated a bit ago that Assad's "...days are numbered"...

    Boy, I bet that world leader feels like an absolute MORON right now, eh!?? :D

    Or maybe that world leader just meant that Assad's days were numbered but it's a really REALLY high number.. :D

    hehehehehehehehe

    "I crack myself up!"
    -Goose, TOP GUN

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    Whataboutery- the practice of responding to a difficult question or problem by raising another difficult question or problem, in order to deflect attention from the original question
    The employers of whataboutery are uncomfortable with the subject under discussion and wish to shift the argument elsewhere.

    A common technique of trolls, you used it at least three times in this thread alone.

    "Which issue are you referring to??"

    Can't tell if it's stupidity, laziness, ignorance or feigned ignorance... but I won't be an enabler for any of those.

    If you can't figure it out using the definition I provided, I think we will all know which of the four it is.

    A

  26. [26] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW-

    Bernie's Boston crowd of 26,000 just topped another Obama record.

    This could get interesting even sooner than expected.

    A

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can't tell if it's stupidity, laziness, ignorance or feigned ignorance... but I won't be an enabler for any of those.

    If you can't figure it out using the definition I provided, I think we will all know which of the four it is.

    TRANSLATION:I'm just talkin' shit...

    :D

    Everyone here knows that I address every issue put before me... Ad nasuem... :D

    The fact that you can't tell me which subject I am allegedly changing and which issue I am allegedly avoiding shows who is full of carp and who is not. :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    This could get interesting even sooner than expected.

    I bet yer a Truther too, eh?? :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    The employers of whataboutery are uncomfortable with the subject under discussion and wish to shift the argument elsewhere.

    Again, anyone here in Weigantia will tell you that I am not uncomfortable with ANY subject... :D

    Something you would know if you weren't so new here.. :D

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    And yet, anyone (but you apparently) can scroll up and see you use whataboutery repeatedly.

    They can see it on just about every thread actually.
    Maybe they weren't familiar with the term, but now they are.

    Your inability to remember or revisit what you yourself wrote is pathetic. And you wouldn't be doing it if you could debate honestly with an ethical defense that didn't rely on deflection.

    Of course, whataboutery is only one of the troll habits you rely on here. Denial of reality makes an appearance too.

    But don't worry.
    My fresh eyes will be useful and used to continue to point out all the others whenever I have nothing better to do.

    Something for you to look forward to, as the little bubble of delusion you are in has clearly become too comfortable.

    altohone

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet, anyone (but you apparently) can scroll up and see you use whataboutery repeatedly.

    And yet you can't answer simple questions..

    What issue am I avoiding?

    What subject am I changing??

    Because you can't, that's why everyone knows you are full of shit.. :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    But don't worry.
    My fresh eyes will be useful and used to continue to point out all the others whenever I have nothing better to do.

    Better than you have tried..

    Better than you have failed...

    And do you know why they failed and you will fail??

    Because, more often than not, I am dead on ballz accurate in what I post...

    I don't hang around in places where I always lose debates...

    The fact that I have been here for almost a decade establishes my bona fides..

    Yer just another johnny-come-lately who contributes nothing but personal attacks and immature name-calling..

    You will be on the dust-bin of history, just like your betters before you...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's Milbank again, recording some of the more amusing gaffes from a speech McCarthy was recently giving off of prepared notes (in other words not ad-libbed, or anything):

    Considering that Biden is about to enter the picture, do you REALLY think shining the spotlight on GOP gaffe's is a good idea?? :D

    I'm just sayin'...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Vladimir Putin sees Barack Obama's coolness as weakness – and it is hurting America
    Russia's bombing of American allies in Syria underlines how much more powerful and provocative Putin is than he was before Obama took office

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/11910639/Vladimir-Putin-sees-Barack-Obamas-coolness-as-weakness-and-it-is-hurting-America.html

    Ya'all got your "cool", "sophisticated" and "enlightened" POTUS..

    And America and the world are much worse off because of it..

    "No Drama" apparently equals "No Backbone"... :^/

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW,

    I have a nomination for BIGGEST POLITICAL LIE OF 2015..

    "President Obama doesn't regret the red line he issued for Syria."
    -White House Spokesman

    :D

    If Obama DOESN'T regret it, he is more clueless than I thought..

    And I think he is pretty clueless...

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    "Considering that Biden is about to enter the picture, do you REALLY think shining the spotlight on GOP gaffe's is a good idea??"

    Too funny. Yet again you resort to whataboutery while denying you use it. It is so habitual for you, you've seemingly lost the ability to avoid doing it.
    Pathetic.

    You and Obama and the Telegraph are delusional to think the US has any "allies" for Putin to attack in Syria.

    There are no "moderate rebels".
    Just al Qaida and their collaborators and IS.
    And they are the ones who used chemical weapons according to the UN inspectors, so no "red line" was ever crossed by Assad.
    Even Tea Partiers could see through that bull.

    Also funny how you defend neolibcon propaganda while attacking our neolibcon president.
    A victim of divide and conquer oblivious to being played.

    altohone

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops.. Here is another BIGGEST POLITICAL OF 2105.....

    I'm the most transparent person in American history
    -Hillary Clinton

    If yer gonna lie.. lie BIG..... :^/

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are no "moderate rebels".
    Just al Qaida and their collaborators and IS.
    And they are the ones who used chemical weapons according to the UN inspectors, so no "red line" was ever crossed by Assad.

    Still defending your scumbag buddy, Assad, eh??

    Yea, Biga... Assad is the good guy... Suuurrreeeeee... :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact that you quote the UN simply proves how far off the reservation you have gone, Biga..

    Not surprising, coming from a Truther...

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biga,

    As to your "whataboutery" childishness....

    It would have some validity if I were actually defending the GOP..

    But I am not, so it doesn't...

    But hay... Thanx for playing.. :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, Biga..

    If you had actually had some time here under your belt you would realize that the one overriding common thread in all of my postings is that there really is no difference between Democrats and Republicans... They are both two sides of the same corrupt and pathetic coin..

    What you call "whataboutery" is simply me pointing out the evidence that proves my point every time it comes up..

    And, as you can readily see, it comes up a lot. :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    On the gun issue, I can think of no better comment that this one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awgs0burFTk

    As for Joe Biden, my prediction is the same as it has been for the last four months: he will never again run for president.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the gun issue, I can think of no better comment that this one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awgs0burFTk

    I had to stop half way, Mopshell..

    "What I am not for is bull shit arguments and lies"

    He then goes on in the VERY next sentence to make a bullshit argument and lies thru his ass...

    That's the kind of hypocrisy that totally turns me off of the Anti-Gun crowds arguments...

    There is ONE simple fact that simply CANNOT be contested when it comes to stopping mass shootings...

    It's a fact illustrated by one simple question..

    Has there EVER been a mass shooting at a gun range or in a cop hangout?

    You will never, ever, ever ever never ever ever NEVER EVER disarm Americans..

    It will NEVER happen. NEVER... EVER....

    Give this total and unequivocal FACT, what's left in the argument to prevent mass shootings??

    Get rid of the Psycho Hunting Grounds.. AKA Gun Free Zones..

    Get that clown Jefferies in here and I will totally decimate his and everyone else's anti-gun argument..

    Do you know how??

    By proving beyond ANY doubt to ANYONE that A> guns are not the problem and 2> anyone that truly believes that guns and guns alone are the problem is a few fries short of a Happy Meal..

    I can PROVE that beyond ANY doubt to ANYONE...

    Even to you...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay.... Let it not be said that I am not a reasonable person..

    Ya'all want the US to mirror Australia's gun laws??

    Fine.. Ya'all go for it..

    Ya'all will just have to repeal the 2nd Amendment, totally trample on the 4th and 5th Amendments and gut the 1st Amendment.....

    But, what the hell, right?? It's all good in pursuit of a gun-free utopia...

    Who cares about those measly and totally inconvenient Bill Of Rights, eh!?? Australia doesn't have them, so the US doesn't need them..

    "Australia doesn't have, correctly in my view, a Bill Of Rights"
    -Former Prime Minister John Howard

    Of course, Australia had their nation-hood handed to them on a silver platter and the US had to fight tooth and nail for bloody years to get theirs. But.. Pish posh!!

    Personal freedom?? Bah.. We don't need no stinkin' personal freedom!!

    Unless, of course, it's Leftist Approved Personal Freedom...

    But, what the hell... Ya'all knock yourselves out... Trample and gut the US Consitution...

    And when someone comes to my house from the government and says, "We're here for your guns.." I'll be sure and mention something about cold dead fingers...

    It's funny how the Hysterical Left reveres the US Constitution when it comes to gay marriage, but totally disregards it when it doesn't suit the agenda...

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    If one really wants to see what a Leftist Gun Free Utopia looks like, all one has to do is visit Chicago, New York City or Baltimore..

    Yea... Gun Control works WONDERS.....

    That was sarcasm, in case ya'all missed it..

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden sounding more like a candidate to friends
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/politics/joe-biden-2016/index.html

  47. [47] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    There is ONE simple fact that simply CANNOT be contested when it comes to stopping mass shootings...

    It's a fact illustrated by one simple question..

    Has there EVER been a mass shooting at a gun range or in a cop hangout?

    Yes.

  48. [48] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Get rid of the Psycho Hunting Grounds.. AKA Gun Free Zones..

    Correlation is not causation.

    If one really wants to see what a Leftist Gun Free Utopia looks like, all one has to do is visit Chicago, New York City or Baltimore..

    Yea... Gun Control works WONDERS.....

    What, we can't use another country? There are so many statistically juicy ones to chose from...

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Correlation is not causation.

    That's funny because, according to the hysterical Left, correlation IS causation in the case of gun control laws in foreign countries..

    So, I guess what you are saying is that correlation IS causation when it suits the agenda, but correlation is NOT causation when it DOESN'T suit the agenda..

    Gotcha {{wink wink}} :D

    What, we can't use another country? There are so many statistically juicy ones to chose from...

    Oh of course, you can use another country.. But you only use those examples when it suits the agenda...

    I have already totally debunked and demolished the Australia example...

    What else ya got? :D

    I got Mexico if you want to go there.. :D

    Has there EVER been a mass shooting at a gun range or in a cop hangout?

    Yes.

    No.. That wasn't a gun range or a cop bar..

    And the fact that uniformed cops were targeted stretches the concept past the breaking point..

    But, I'll give you half a mark for coming close...

    The simple fact is, there is documented facts that show mass shooters will choose a GUN FREE ZONE for a target over a place or area where guns are not banned..

    Personally, I think it should be that if a business or location posts as a GUN FREE ZONE, they should be 1000% liable for any criminal shootings at their place that results in injury or death..

    If a business owner wants to announce to the world that they are a moron, they should pay the price..

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    What, we can't use another country? There are so many statistically juicy ones to chose from...

    But... But.... But..

    I thought you said that.... lemme look back and see... wait a sec... yea.. here it is... you said Correlation is not causation.

    So, which is it?? :D

    Gotcha.... :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Medical Dictionary defines MASS SHOOTING thusly

    The discharging of firearms multiple times by one or more parties into a group of unarmed victims.

    With that definition, your cop ambush example would not apply...

    Given my experiences, I would say that any time law enforcement is targeted and/or ambushed, it's not the same as some scumbag walking into a school and shooting up the place...

    But I'm sure you already knew that, Lois... That's what I like about you... Your attention to detail."
    -Jim Carrey, ACE VENTURA, PET DETECTIVE

    :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    That's funny because, according to the hysterical Left, correlation IS causation in the case of gun control laws in foreign countries..

    Really? Can you point them out?

    So, I guess what you are saying is that correlation IS causation when it suits the agenda, but correlation is NOT causation when it DOESN'T suit the agenda..

    Seems to be the way it works with you :D

    But seriously, what are you blaming me for the left this time?

    I got Mexico if you want to go there.. :D

    Please do, just remember to look over decades and not years...

    No.. That wasn't a gun range or a cop bar..

    You said, "cop hangout". That fits. Four or more deaths beyond the shooter, meets the FBI definition of a mass shooter. I think full credit is in order.

    I have already totally debunked and demolished the Australia example...

    Really? There was an argument there? All I read was hysterical ravings about a questionable retelling of Australian history...

    The simple fact is, there is documented facts that show mass shooters will choose a GUN FREE ZONE for a target over a place or area where guns are not banned..

    Bullshit. Almost all the shooters where it could be determined the reason, chose the place because of a connection to that place or specific people in it, usually a combination of the two.

  53. [53] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Gotcha.... :D

    So, if you write it a bunch of times does that make it true? Yawn.

    Given my experiences, I would say that any time law enforcement is targeted and/or ambushed, it's not the same as some scumbag walking into a school and shooting up the place...

    More like you did not expect to be proved wrong and are trying to weasel out of it as fast as possible...

  54. [54] 
    altohone wrote:

    No Micha

    Whataboutery was defined long ago... first used to describe the British deflections in debates on Northern Ireland, then adopted by "defenders" of Israel, and now commonly used on the right and by pathetic trolls such as yourself.
    I's not what I call it, it's what you do.
    And it's plain for all to see.
    Trollery 101.
    You call it "childishness" for me to point it out?
    Does that make trollery adult and mature in your book?

    I've been here long enough to see one pattern.
    I only see you defending the right and attacking the left... except for the one time you attacked the Trumpon for not being right wing enough when he agreed the carried interest loophole should be closed... which isn't so much an exception as proving my point.

    You've had plenty of chances to prove your supposedly nonpartisan, independent status and belief that "both sides are corrupt", yet all you do is right wing idiocy... again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
    Every topic, every time.
    Not one shred of evidence to suggest your claim is anything but another obvious lie.

    I find it very strange that you believe and trust al Qaida "rebel" claims in Syria more than the UN... seriously nutjob territory.
    And, you do realize you're defending the "corrupt" with that position, right? Right?

    Lying about me being a "truther" again?
    Really?
    I knew you were a dishonest sack.
    But this desperation is too funny.
    Trollery to make yourself feel better for being called out on your trollery.
    Yes, lying is common among trolls.

    You have proven my point with supreme clarity.

    altohone

  55. [55] 
    rdnewman wrote:
  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's funny because, according to the hysterical Left, correlation IS causation in the case of gun control laws in foreign countries..

    Really? Can you point them out?

    I sure can..

    See Mopshell's Youtube Video.. :D

    Seems to be the way it works with you :D

    Seriously, Bashi??

    The I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I rebuttal??

    I got Mexico if you want to go there.. :D

    Please do, just remember to look over decades and not years...

    Yes, Mexico has been a shit hole for decades...

    So has New York and Chicago..

    You said, "cop hangout". That fits. Four or more deaths beyond the shooter, meets the FBI definition of a mass shooter. I think full credit is in order.

    Just because cops are there doesn't make it a "cop hangout"..

    Of course you think full credit is in order.. But a "mass shooting" usually is defined as being against people who are unarmed..

    Really? There was an argument there? All I read was hysterical ravings about a questionable retelling of Australian history...

    OK, let me put it succinctly with a couple questions I know you will ignore....

    1. Do you believe that Australia's gun control program would work in the US.

    2. Do you support imposing Australia's gun control program here in the US..

    Let the ignoring/equivocating/weaseling begin! :D

    More like you did not expect to be proved wrong and are trying to weasel out of it as fast as possible...

    Not at all.. Mass shootings of LEO are usually not considered in the same vein as mass shootings of innocent unarmed civilians..

    Like I said, I think you know that.. You hysterically scrounged around for SOMETHING to prove me wrong and that was all you could come up with...

    Pretty lame.. But I still gave you half a point for effort.. :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lying about me being a "truther" again?
    Really?

    In your conversations with Liz you admitted you were a truther..

    When she called you out on it, you ran scared.. When she called you out on it again, you again run scared...

    I understand why you wouldn't want to admit to being a truther...

    But you should be proud of your beliefs, not hide them for fear of ridicule.. :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    When she called you out on it, you ran scared.. When she called you out on it again, you again run scared...

    You see, Biga, that's been your pattern since you arrived here all those weeks ago..

    You spout off a bunch on inane and totally baseless claims and then clam up and run when you are called on them.

    You admitted you were a truther and then ran and hid when called on it.

    You were proven wrong about BLM not being a racist hate group and you ran and hid..

    You were proven wrong about Iran not being the number one state sponsor for terrorism and you ran and hid..

    That's been your entire MO.. You make grandiose claims, never back them up with any facts and then when called on them, you ignore it...

    But, as I have said, it's amusing to see you twist in the wind.. Normally I don't take pleasure in someone else's discomfort..

    But since all you are about around here is personal attacks and immature name-calling, I'll make an exception for you. :D

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    I find it very strange that you believe and trust al Qaida "rebel" claims in Syria more than the UN... seriously nutjob territory.

    I DON'T find it strange that you would believe and trust **THE** most corrupt and moronic organization on the planet, the United Nations..

    This was a group that conned 9 BILLION dollars out of the Iraq Oil For Food program..

    This was a group that was sent to an African Nation to stop the fighting and ended up being caught red-handed selling arms to BOTH sides in the conflict..

    The fact that you are a UN supporter doesn't surprise me in the least...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    RD,

    Is this perhaps relevant?

    Heh.. :D

    Yea, with most Weigantians, that's the way it is..

    But with people like Biga and his kind before him, the personal attacks and immature name-calling makes friendly debate chatter impossible...

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Bullshit. Almost all the shooters where it could be determined the reason, chose the place because of a connection to that place or specific people in it, usually a combination of the two.

    Key word being "almost all".. There were quite a few targets that were chosen BECAUSE they were Psycho Shooting Galleries... The Aurora Theater shooting for example..

    But hay.. I am a fair guy.. Give me examples of the "ALMOST all" that were chosen for the alleged reasons you gave..

    Really? There was an argument there? All I read was hysterical ravings about a questionable retelling of Australian history...

    TRANSLATION:I have no response to your facts so I'll just lamely claim that they make no sense...

    I accept your concession.... :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhhh The peacefulness and wonderfulness and downright awesomeness of Left Wing gun free utopias...

    Data: Chicago's violence in September was especially brutal
    chicagotribune.com/ct-chicago-shootings-and-homicides-in-september-20151002-htmlstory.html

    Bloody Baltimore: No end seen to post-Freddie Gray spike in homicides, shootings
    foxnews.com/us/2015/10/05/bloody-baltimore-post-freddie-gray-spike-in-homicides-shootings-continues/?intcmp=trending

    NYPD reveals increases in homicides and gun violence across NYC compared to last year, with half as many stop-and-frisks
    nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/cops-seek-sweatsuit-clad-man-shot-bystander-brooklyn-article-1.2242439

    Yea...

    Gun control is wonderful...

    For scumbag criminals..

    Of course, the Left Wing Anti-Gun nuts ignore these facts in favor of the TOTALLY bogus comparison to places like Australia..

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Totally unrelated to anything..

    Did you ever want to know what happened if an alligator had sex with a buffalo??

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/weird-animal-body-buffalo-head-6577508

    Now we know.... :D

    Weird...

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's been many days since I issued my challenge to all Anti-Gun fanatics..

    What so-called "common sense" gun law can you propose that would prevent mass shootings like Sandy Hook, Charleston, Roseburg, etc etc etc??

    I also gave everyone the mother of all incentives to come up with something..

    The results??

    {chiiirrrrppppp} {{chiirrrrrppppp}}

    To date.. Not ONE single person can come up with a reasonable "common sense" gun law that would prevent mass shootings..

    You see, this is EXACTLY why it's IMPOSSIBLE to take anti-gun fanatics seriously..

    The conversation usually goes like this:

    "OH MY GODS!!! ANOTHER MASS SHOOTING!!! OH MY GODS LOOK AT ALL THE DEAD!!! OH MY GODS, WE NEED GUN LAWS TO STOP THIS!!!! OH MY GODS!!!"

    "OK, Mr Fanatic, so we need new gun laws. What law would you like to see put in place?"

    "HOW THE HELL WOULD I KNOW!!?? BUT MY GODS!!! WE NEED LAWS!!! WE NEED REGULATIONS!!! OH MY GODS!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!"

    That's what it's like dealing with anti-gun nuts.. They scream for laws and regulations, but are completely and utterly and unequivocally IGNORANT of the issue. They can't even come up with a law or regulation..

    They simply regurgitate the hysteria...

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    We should only pass laws that criminals will obey.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    To date.. Not ONE single person can come up with a reasonable "common sense" gun law that would prevent mass shootings..

    But, I have to give Left Wingers credit..

    When the mass shooting happened at that Charleston church, the Left swooped in and got a flag banned!!!

    Now THAT's what I call being proactive and taking care of business!!!

    Banning a flag!!! THAT will prevent mass shootings!! Yea!!!!

    Again... That was sarcasm, in case it was too subtle..

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since we're all about facts (sheeya right :D) around here...

    Fact: The US Homicide Rate is at it's lowest point in 100 years at a time when there are more US Gun Owners than there were Adult Americans back then.

    Fact: Mass Shootings aren't even a statistically relevant cause of death. Not even 600 people have been killed in these much hyped Mass Shootings since 1984.

    Fact: There are 21 million licensed Americans carrying concealed weapons and another 8-10 million who require no license due to living in Constitutional Carry states at a time of unprecedented low murder rates.

    Fact: 80-90% of all homicide victims have extensive criminal arrest records and come from primarily Democrat voting districts(even within "Red States") and law abiding citizens being the victims of homicide has gone from 40% to 10-20% since the advent of Concealed Carry in 40+ states.

    Fact: The majority of US firearms deaths are SUICIDES(not homicides or accidents) and the US ranks neck and neck with the UK and other EU nations for suicide so the mechanism chosen is a matter of convenience and not a contributing factor to US suicide rates.

    Gun Control is based on hype, irrational emotionalism and intentional disinformation to take advantage of well meaning but gullible Americans and isn't a legitimate public policy priority.

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK OK, I got it!

    I have the solution. This will work out great!!

    We'll compromise..

    I'll support ALL gun owners being fingerprinted and properly ID'ed....

    If ya'all support that all VOTERS being fingerprinted and properly ID'ed..

    I mean, after all. Gun ownership is as much of a right as voting... Right??

    So, what ya'all say. You game???

    No???

    Didna think so.. :D

    The partisan agenda is sooo transparent... :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Obama wants gun control, then he should lead by example...

    To that effect, here is the announcement that he should make:

    "My fellow Americans. I firmly and truly believe that it is VITAL to those country that we get guns out of our culture.. To that end, I am initiating the following Executive Order.

    Commencing immediately, all Federal Agencies and Organizations shall be disarmed.

    My Secret Service detail.... Disarmed

    All Security details for political leaders..... Disarmed

    All Federal agencies, FBI, ATF, DEA and all other acronyms..... Disarmed

    All Democrat donors and their security details.... Disarmed

    All registered Democrats..... Disarmed

    We can only accomplish this vital goal if we lead by example...

    Thank you and god help the..... I mean god BLESS the United States Of America."

    If Obama wants my support to disarm America???

    He'll have to disarm first...

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, enough of the information overload..

    I realize I am overwhelming you people..

    Let's have a nice quiet discussion of gun violence and gun deaths..

    And, just for sheets and greens, let's break it down by ethnicity and race...

    WHOOAAAAAA!!!

    Oh hell no!!! Ya'all won't want to discuss THAT aspect of gun deaths!!!

    Forget it...

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    We should only pass laws that criminals will obey.

    No... We should pass only the laws that actually will address the problem...

    NO proposed gun laws by the Anti-Gun fanatics addresses the problem of mass-shootings...

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA....

    A scumbag shoots 9 people in a church and the Left hysterical fights to ban a Historical Battle Flag...

    THAT is Left Winger logic at it's finest...

    But, hay... Thanx for playing. :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    (@Michale [#70])

    You mean like this?

    Or perhaps this? (albeit dated)

    (not just Michale) Let's leave the demagoguery, name calling, pomposity, and anger-baiting for the poli-tainment industry. We don't need to become disagreeable just because we might disagree. I left the site once before for this issue. If I wanted to read squabbling, I'd go read YouTube comments. I come here in hopes of reading intelligent, civil, discussion.

    So back to the substantive discussion...

    Michale, I've been thinking about what you've asked and I've decided to challenge your framing:

    First, a gun control argument does not need to prove that it would prevent any singular attack, which may not (probably not) be provable. Rather, it's suitable for a potential solution to empirically demonstate that it reduces the frequency and/or severity of such attacks -- i.e, reduced total injuries and fatalities from such events on, say, an annual basis. So I reject your challenge on a singular event as a poor barometer of judging an argument. However, my framing will require some public policy experimentation before a reasonable solution can be demonstrated to have worked.

    Second, I simply can't accept the current rhetoric (not just yours certainly, but implied by your position) that somehow these deaths are the sort of thing that should reasonably be normalized and accepted -- the "shit happens" argument. Sorry, that's just callous. Throwing one's hands up and saying it's hopeless and we'll just let people die because we won't discuss and actually try alternatives is just willful negligence if not outright dereliction. It's fair to discuss where the line might be, but to act like these deaths are some kind of unavoidable cost for having a second amendment is unsatisfactory. I want better. Just like I want better health care, safer schools, and safer roadways.

    Third, mass shootings have occurred in several military base settings over the years. For instance, see Ft. Hood. More generally, several studies show that increased presence of guns in a general populace increases gun deaths (from all uses, not just mass murder), so your position with regard to arming everyone to deter mass murder seems undermined by the evidence.

    Besides musing on the points you and others have raised, I'm also considering articles like these, but am also considering the history and then-contemporary context of how the second amendment came to be written and ratified. I reject the notion that nothing can be done, but I also reject the notion that it has to be one or the other -- I'd like to find a solution that bridges what I hope is a false dichotomy.

    We may need to be creative so that responsible gun ownership remains in some form consistent with the second amendment, but the current status quo can be improved on. I'd like a way to retain responsible gun ownership and possession, but what we have now as a society... Just, no. It's not right.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean like this?

    Or perhaps this? (albeit dated)

    The more recent shooters have been of minority races...

    The Roseburg shooter was black..

    But I would like to confine the discussion to just mass shootings, if you don't mind..

    I mean, if you want to include ALL gun violence and you take away the minority gun violence (which is not necessarily a gun issue) then the US's gun deaths are not much different than the rest of the world's...

    But if you really WANT to go with all gun deaths in the US, I am constrained to point out that mass shootings (which always prompts Left Winger navel gazing) is statistically insignificant with the over all gun deaths issue..

    Yer call...

    (not just Michale) Let's leave the demagoguery, name calling, pomposity, and anger-baiting for the poli-tainment industry. We don't need to become disagreeable just because we might disagree. I left the site once before for this issue. If I wanted to read squabbling, I'd go read YouTube comments. I come here in hopes of reading intelligent, civil, discussion.

    Completely and unequivocally agree..

    I will attempt to do my part...

    First, a gun control argument does not need to prove that it would prevent any singular attack, which may not (probably not) be provable. Rather, it's suitable for a potential solution to empirically demonstate that it reduces the frequency and/or severity of such attacks -- i.e, reduced total injuries and fatalities from such events on, say, an annual basis. So I reject your challenge on a singular event as a poor barometer of judging an argument. However, my framing will require some public policy experimentation before a reasonable solution can be demonstrated to have worked.

    As I have mentioned ad nasuem, I am just a knuckle dragging ground pounder.. When a group get's all hysterical over an action that happened, I expect that their solutions WILL ADDRESS that action...

    To put it bluntly, if we have a mass shooting, I don't think it's appropriate that a agenda-driven group horn their way in with a totally non-sequitor "solution"...

    Wouldn't you agree??

    If we are discussing solutions for crowd-based shootings, then lets discuss solutions for crowd-based shootings and not the "wouldn't it be nice if we had a latte maker in the car" solutions..

    I said I would be less disagreeable.. I didn't say I would be less sarcastic asshole.. :D

    Second, I simply can't accept the current rhetoric (not just yours certainly, but implied by your position) that somehow these deaths are the sort of thing that should reasonably be normalized and accepted -- the "shit happens" argument. Sorry, that's just callous. Throwing one's hands up and saying it's hopeless and we'll just let people die because we won't discuss and actually try alternatives is just willful negligence if not outright dereliction.

    Ok, let me rephrase it...

    If we want to stop crowd based shootings, then reasonable rational pro-active steps would be to allow certified and trained individuals to carry weapons concealed or open...

    Registering gun owners will do nothing to stop crowd based shootings...

    Fingerprinting gun owners will do nothing to stop crowd based shootings...

    If one wants to offer up solutions, one needs to have solutions that will actually WORK and have a positive effect..

    Saying, "Let's ban a hysterical battle flag!!" in response to a crowd-based shooting?? THAT is callous and THAT should be condemned by everyone here...

    hird, mass shootings have occurred in several military base settings over the years. For instance, see Ft. Hood. More generally, several studies show that increased presence of guns in a general populace increases gun deaths (from all uses, not just mass murder), so your position with regard to arming everyone to deter mass murder seems undermined by the evidence.

    As strange as it may sound, Fort Hood is a Gun Free Zone...

    THAT's a whole 'nother topic regarding letting our military soldiers carry arms...

    We may need to be creative so that responsible gun ownership remains in some form consistent with the second amendment, but the current status quo can be improved on. I'd like a way to retain responsible gun ownership and possession, but what we have now as a society... Just, no. It's not right.

    Basically the solution from the Left is akin to requiring that people who buy alcohol must register because sometime in the future they may drive drunk and kill people...

    That's the thought process that I am fighting...

    Everyone on the Left likes to point to Australia.. As I have proven beyond any doubt, an Australia style gun ban simply WILL NOT work here in the US...

    If someone has an reasonable law to prevent or help prevent crowd based shootings, that would work and apply in the US then let's hear it...

    But, no one does...

    That's my point and that's the source of my frustrations..

    "But hay... At least we're talking.."
    -Sam Winchester, SUPERNATURAL, The French Mistake

    :D

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    RD,

    In essence, whenever a crowd-based shooting of this nature happens, the Left comes out of the woodwork with their, Wouldn't It Be Nice laws that have little or (more often) NOTHING to do with the tragedy that prompted the coming out..

    The Charleston Shooting/Battle Flag nonsense is a perfect example of this..

    Once the Left does this, then like clockwork, the Right starts up with it's hysterical defense of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment..

    If the Left would stop it's knee-jerk Wouldn't It Be Nice inanity, then the Right Wing's hysteria could be nipped in the bud...

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, crowd-based shootings are not just theory or words on a computer screen to me..

    I was a rookie SDSO Deputy in San Ysidro on 18 Jul 1984...

    I have seen and smelled first hand the carnage wrought by an active shooter..

    More than 95% of all crowd based shootings since the 1950s have been in Gun Free Zones...

    While the kewl catchphrase "Correlation Does Not Equal Causation" is really easy to utter, only a total moron (or someone with a partisan agenda) could look at that 95%+ figure and NOT think to themselves, "hmmmmmm"

    Personally, I would like to see it codified into civil law that ANY business owner or area RP that puts out GUN FREE ZONE signs be held civilly liable for ANY crowd based shooting...

    I mean, honestly... We can fine a christian baker HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars for not baking a fraking wedding cake, but a moron that creates a Psycho Shooting Gallery gets away scot-free when dozens or more people die???

    Where is the logic???

    As I said, this issue is not theory to me...

    Something HAS to be done, we all agree on that...

    The problem is that the SOMETHING that the Left wants to do ONLY furthers their partisan agenda and does NOTHING to address the problem of people dying...

    And THAT pisses me off to no end...

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay....

    I am all for helping my neighbors...

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/JIMBO66664/my-neighbor-doesnt-have-a-gun_zps810e9d3d.jpg

    What are good neighbors for, eh? :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    'The President is not welcome here': Roseburg residents angry that Obama is traveling to visit the victims of the UCC shooting
    Publisher of a local conservative newspaper in Roseburg, Oregon, says Obama is 'not welcome' in the town
    The President will visit Friday
    David Jaques says the visit is a 'grandstand for political purposes'
    Jaques said Obama held a press conference Thursday before the bodies of the victims had been identified
    Nine people were killed and nine injured at Umpqua Community College on October 1

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3261458/The-President-not-welcome-Roseburg-residents-angry-Obama-traveling-visit-victims-UCC-shooting.html#ixzz3noPn5nKU

    That's our POTUS..

    Going where he is NOT wanted and politicizing a tragedy to further his own unpopular and unnecessary agenda....

    He blatantly said it himself..

    "We have to politicize these tragedies"...

    Moron...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's how well strict gun laws work...

    Chicago Shootings Reach 2,349 This Year — Someone Shot Every 2.8 Hours
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/06/chicago-shootings-reach-2349-this-year-someone-shot-every-2-8-hours/#ixzz3noVfqiom

    Chicago is perhaps THE most gun regulated city in the country..

    So tell me again how the "facts" indicated that gun laws work??

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    altohone wrote:

    No Micha

    "In your conversations with Liz you admitted you were a truther..

    When she called you out on it, you ran scared.. When she called you out on it again, you again run scared..."

    Utter bullshit.
    You are seriously delusional or impaired.
    Inventing a lie to cover up your lie is typical of a liar, but this is a new pathetic low.

    Your lies about BLM and Iran are just pathetic too.
    Trollery is nothing close to winning an argument.
    Cheaters never win, they just delude themselves.

    Thanks for the hearty laugh for the whataboutery about me, to deflect from the obvious truths about your whataboutery and clear right wing lunacy.

    You see, you aren't defending yourself by falsely attacking me. If you could defend yourself, it wouldn't be necessary.

    That is running scared.

    I particularly like the lying troll attempting to claim the moral high ground.
    As if trollery qualifies as "debate" or "conversation".

    altohone

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    In deference to RD's recent comments..

    I'll take the moral high ground...

    AGAIN... :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    altohone wrote:

    Ha

    The liar bails and runs away.
    AGAIN.

    Typical wingnut troll.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    No more attention from Obama or Democrats on the Roseburg shooting.

    For them, it's yesterdays news that they have milked for all it's worth...

    Don't ya'all EVER get tired of Democrats doing nothing but playing politics with crowd-based shooting tragedies??

    I know I do.. But then again, I get tired of a LOT of carp that comes from the Democrats...

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news..

    http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/guantanamo-closure-remains-obama-priority/?dcz=

    Obama and the Democrats would see this country become utterly defenseless and make sure our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines don't get paid....

    All because they can't get their agenda served...

    I am sure ya'all will join me in condemning Obama and the Democrats for this disturbing and disgusting action..

    {{chhiiirrrrrppp}} {{chiiiirrrrrrppp}}

    :^/

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in Hillary news..

    drip, drip, drip....

    It seems that the FBI investigation into Hillary's private insecure bathroom closet email server has expanded to a new Data Tech company that had retained backups of all Hillary's emails...

    And there are some internal emails from the first tech company that state they should get Hillary on record as requesting that they get rid of backups because, in the exact words of one of the techs there, "... this is some shadey shit.."

    drip, drip, drip, drip....

    Looks like my Hillary demise prediction is not too far off, eh??

    Don't worry.. I promise not to gloat.... much... :D

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama and the Democrats would see this country become utterly defenseless and make sure our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines don't get paid....

    I mean, look at the blatant hypocrisy from the Left..

    The Republicans are shutting down the country!!! OH MY GODS!!! Social Security recipients will not get their checks!! OH MY GODS!!! The HORROR!!!!

    Obama and the Democrats are shutting down the military. This country will be defenseless and our service men and women in the armed forces and DoD civilians won't get paid..

    {{{chhiiiirrrrrpppppp}}} {{{chiiirrrrrrpppppp}}}

    Hypocrisy.. Blatant... Unadulterated... Unequivocal... Hypocrisy....

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since the gun issue is winding down (not so shocking since it's already been a few days since the Roseburg) let me finish up with the request I made in the immediate aftermath of the shooting..

    Give me a reasonable law that will prevent or help prevent crowd based mass shootings...

    RD's logical and rational response notwithstanding, I respectfully disagree with him...

    I don't believe that *ANYTHING* we do is a good thing... It's nothing more than a placebo that allows politicians to appease the masses with something that, at BEST, is nothing but window dressing and, at worst, actively works against the goal...

    This approach was epitomized in the Charleston church shooting...

    So, here's my suggestion for the Left..

    Next time there is a crowd-based mass shooting.... COME UP WITH A REASONABLE AND COMPETENT LAW TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE

    Otherwise, just shut the hell up about it... It gets on my nerves...

    Guns are not the problem.. This is well-established fact...

    Come up with solutions that fix or help fix the problem?? Or just pipe down...

    Thank you for your attention....

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    Michale,

    [#73]To put it bluntly, if we have a mass shooting, I don't think it's appropriate that a agenda-driven group horn their way in with a totally non-sequitor "solution"...

    Wouldn't you agree??

    If we are discussing solutions for crowd-based shootings, then lets discuss solutions for crowd-based shootings and not the "wouldn't it be nice if we had a latte maker in the car" solutions..

    At the risk of endorsing your "totally non-sequitor" characteristic, I see your point: political opportunism. Not pretty from either side, a bit like mucking out barn stalls.

    Ok, crowd-based shootings. Let's inventory the options I've read just on CW (feel free to correct this list, this is just off the top of my head):
    - arm more of the general populace (deterrent, faster response to stopping violence)
    - arm less of the general populace (limit who can own, limit how many can own: reduce means, reduce probability)
    - arm populace more intelligently (training, licensure, discipline) -- is this in effect making the populace less "general"?
    - address causes of violence (mental health, motivations)

    Did I miss any? I think the solutions offered so far land in at least one of those four main areas.

    Place to start anyway...

    If we want to stop crowd based shootings, then reasonable rational pro-active steps would be to allow certified and trained individuals to carry weapons concealed or open...

    Hear, hear.

    Registering gun owners will do nothing to stop crowd based shootings...

    I'm struggling to understand how we can to the above "certified" without some form of registration. I can see the initial logic in that merely taking an inventory of all gun owners and guns though doesn't actually do anything. I might reply that we'd be able to track the flow of guns from certified to uncertified users if we registered firearms, but there's a number of logistic arguments with that if I did, so I won't.In principle at least, there seems some value to exploring this option more.

    Fingerprinting gun owners will do nothing to stop crowd based shootings...

    If one wants to offer up solutions, one needs to have solutions that will actually WORK and have a positive effect..

    ...

    Basically the solution from the Left is akin to requiring that people who buy alcohol must register because sometime in the future they may drive drunk and kill people...

    That's the thought process that I am fighting...

    Fair enough, I agree that this doesn't seem to address the actual problem. However, I don't know that I've seen anyone around here on CW, posit this as a solution. The "left", as is the "right", is so amorphous that it doesn't help to paint with such a large brush. I'm sure I've seen some on the left advocate for that and I agree it doesn't seem to reconcile well with either solvency or 2nd amendment original purposes.

    [#74]The Charleston Shooting/Battle Flag nonsense is a perfect example of this..

    You've brought up the battle flag reaction a couple of times now. Setting aside for the moment the other non-gun-violence related points about the Confederate flag, it's in part a cultural reaction from seeing a correlation between admirers of that flag and gun-celebratory subculture. Now I see your point and I know I just waded in to it with what I just said, but as a former cop, I trust you regard a sidearm more as a tool for defense and protection than as a kind of cultural trophy. It'd be wrong for me to suggest that all or even most Confederate-flag-admirers would regard a weapon as more than a tool to handle responsibly, but where an underlying attitude that gun and gun-use should be celebrated as some kind of proxy for machismo, it should be normed away. Just as we culturally have tried to norm away the notions that cigarettes make you cool and drunk driving is fun. So while pulling down a flag doesn't directly stop a gun from being used in a mass murder and, purely as a response to making gun use more responsible, it is a pretty reactionary response, pushing back a gun-celebratory cultural ethic does have some value in addressing the issue.


    Once the Left does this, then like clockwork, the Right starts up with it's hysterical defense of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment..

    If the Left would stop it's knee-jerk Wouldn't It Be Nice inanity, then the Right Wing's hysteria could be nipped in the bud...

    Yes, the ideological arguments are caught in a zero-sum rut. I don't agree though that, to paraphrase, if the left were more reasonable, the right would be too (implying that the right are only unreasonable because the left are).

    So, at the risk of "wouldn't it be nice", I'd love to see the topic brought up by those seen as conservative yet wanting to do something about this rather than waiting around to be defensive when the left brings it up. I gotta believe my more conservative friends and colleagues are horrified by the status quo as well. I'm a gun owner and a carry permit holder and tried to teach my kids how to responsibly use and handle. Still, I don't like how we as a society handle this. I think my formal, mandated 4-hour training for a concealed carry permit was laughable (my father was a cop and veteran who gave me many more hours of instruction as a teenager). I don't want to have to carry everywhere in some might-makes-right world. So "gun owners for responsible gun ownership" seems like a good way to start to bridge the conversation away from the current red-jersey-vs-blue-jersey dynamic we have today.

    [#75]I was a rookie SDSO Deputy in San Ysidro on 18 Jul 1984...

    I have seen and smelled first hand the carnage wrought by an active shooter..

    More than 95% of all crowd based shootings since the 1950s have been in Gun Free Zones...

    While the kewl catchphrase "Correlation Does Not Equal Causation" is really easy to utter, only a total moron (or someone with a partisan agenda) could look at that 95%+ figure and NOT think to themselves, "hmmmmmm".

    My dad was a cop too and had some serious stories that I still remember. He was later the victim of a criminal shooting and so I have some first hand experience as well (though of course not on the scale you did). I respect where you were, what you did, and I know that it leaves a mark, Michale. I think that your 95% statistic is worth exploring further. And I think your question around military personnel not carrying is worth exploring (is it because that those that are most in the know, know its better to control gun presence overall?). I will say however, that this logic also seems a form of the MAD Cold War ethic that then leads to arms races. And so I am skeptical that such a direction leads us to a better place. I'm much more interested in your certified gun owner idea as a place to start than having everyone and anyone try to keep up with the Jones' arsenal. If everyone who owns a gun had a reasonable amount of training and a code for continued use and possession, I believe things would improve just like we do for most tools that could harm a large number of people.

    Having said that, it's worth doing some kind of statistical review and study (rather than anecdotal treatment that we see much in the media) to understand your 95% claim. I mean if we're just gonna let anyone carry regardless of training, well, then, I suppose I'd have to consider your proposal.

    Something HAS to be done, we all agree on that...

    Then you, my friend, and I start from the same place. We just need to help make that "something" happen. Until the "reasonable" people stand up and are heard, then the extremists on both sides rule the airwaves.

    The problem is that the SOMETHING that the Left wants to do ONLY furthers their partisan agenda and does NOTHING to address the problem of people dying...

    You know, Michale, I'm generally considered by my friends as part of "the Left." Card-carrying, yada yada. ;) The cynicism with which many of us regard our political rivals is a symptom and a reenforcing cause of this gridlock and hopelessness. I've said it before: political agendas be damned. Perhaps it's time to take off our colored jerseys, quit labeling people left and right, quit acting like Obama or McConnell or Clinton or Cruz are the root of all that is wrong with us, and just put pressure on specific ways to address the indiscriminate gun-violence problem and then have political operatives respond to that instead.

  88. [88] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    Michale,

    I wrote a long reply post to you this morning that hasn't shown up (yet, I hope -- took me an hour or two!).

    Afterwards, I found a few "left" websites on gun ownership I thought you'd like to see. I haven't reviewed these very deeply yet, but still it gives me hope that we can find more moderate voices than the prevalent reactionary left and right ideologies.

    The Liberal Gun Club
    American Gun Culture Report (a magazine it looks like)
    Liberal Gun Owners Association

    I assume there are some pretty moderate gun ownership voices right of center, but I haven't looked for those yet. You said that if someone on the left would start, you'd start on the right...

    Richard

Comments for this article are closed.