ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [365] -- Chaos Reigns!

[ Posted Friday, October 9th, 2015 – 17:19 PDT ]

Two weeks ago, we wrote one of these columns and snarkily subtitled it: "New Job Vacancy: Chief GOP Cat-Herder." This week, we really should have gone with: "Babysitting Experience STRONGLY PREFERRED," but Salon had already used it (we'll explain that joke in a bit, promise). Instead, we chose to feature the word which appeared in too many headlines to accurately count over the past two days, because describing what is going on in the Republican Party these days is pretty downright hard to do without using the word "chaos" in some fashion or another.

Chaos is king. Chaos reigns in the House Republican Caucus, reflecting the chaos from the Republican presidential campaign trail. The question is what will emerge from this maelstrom -- a beautiful phoenix-like rebirth of the Grand Old Party, or perhaps such a wide split that the Republican Party fractures the same way the Democrats and the Dixiecrats did over half a century ago. At this point, either outcome seems equally possible. We are in chaotic and uncharted waters, folks. In fact, you can almost hear the Discordians chanting "Hail Eris!" at this point (that was an obscure Robert Anton Wilson joke, just because it seemed like the perfect week to toss it into the mix).

Here's how Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post summed up what's going on: "Less than a year after a sweeping electoral triumph, Republicans are on the verge of ceasing to function as a national political party. The most powerful and crippling force at work in the -once-hierarchical GOP is anger, directed as much at its own leaders as anywhere else." Others are more sanguine, predicting that some sort of moderate will emerge to drag the House Republicans back to respectability, in the same fashion Denny Hastert did after the Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston fiasco. So perhaps this week's fracas over the speaker of the House will be seen later as nothing more than an intra-party squabble, but then again perhaps not. Even if they do finally select some hapless fool to take the job, the dynamics of the situation aren't going to change one bit.

To review how we got here: John Boehner had an impossible job, and he finally got fed up dealing with the lunatics in his own party. He announced he was stepping down. The consensus candidate was supposed to be Kevin McCarthy, who immediately went out and baldly admitted a deeply-held Republican secret: the Benghazi hearings were designed purely to destroy Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming president. Whoops! You're not supposed to admit stuff like this out loud, much less in a nationally-broadcast television interview. Whether this mattered or not to the Tea Partiers in the House (who are now known as the "Freedom Caucus," naturally), they indicated that they wouldn't be voting for McCarthy on the House floor. To put this another way, they may have tanked McCarthy even if he had never made his infamous gaffe -- McCarthy is, after all, Boehner's hand-picked successor. When McCarthy saw that he was unlikely to get the necessary 218 votes, he immediately withdrew his name from consideration.

The Tea Partiers, as usual, had no "Plan B." 'Twas ever thus.

So we now find ourselves at an interesting (and, of course, chaotic) juncture. There seem to be four main possibilities as to what's going to happen next. Of course, there are other things that could happen (such as Nancy Pelosi convincing 30 or so moderate Republicans to vote her in as speaker once again), but we're trying to limit them to things we consider likely.

The first is perhaps the stupidest. Some are speaking of bringing in a "caretaker" speaker (or "interim" speaker), whatever that means. The idea is to find some House Republican who has already announced they'll be stepping down next year, and convince them to run the place until they leave. In other words, get a doddering old warhorse up there to hold the place together for another year. This would display the weakness of the Republican Party in starker fashion than any of the other options, though, because they'd be essentially campaigning on: "We got nothin' -- elect us for another two years!" So much for all of that talk of the "Republican deep bench," eh?

The second option is to have a savior part the waves and lead the party to safe ground. Currently, there is only one name that has even been mentioned for this role: Paul Ryan. The only problem is, Ryan is not a fool and can see how doomed to failure any speaker is going to be right now. He's said over and over again that he's not running for speaker, no matter how much everyone is begging him to do so. Ryan knows that accepting the job might just be the end of his political career, and it's no surprise that he's got his sights set higher than "ended his career as a disastrous speaker of the House."

The third option is to have someone else swoop in and save the House Republicans from themselves. The speaker of the House does not actually have to be a sitting House member, so in theory they could elect anyone to the job. Which has given rise to much high-spirited speculation about who could come in as some sort of enforcer to whack some heads and get some things done. Think this is an impossibility? Well, consider one name being batted around: Dick Cheney. That'd be interesting, that's for sure. The showdown between Darth Cheney and the backbenchers could raise a lot of money on pay-per-view, don't you think? Heh. Others seriously (or unseriously) proposed include Newt Gingrich (no stranger to unruly Houses) and Mitt Romney. Why not Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin? They don't seem to be doing much of anything, and would likely relish the fun of being speaker. Oh, you betcha!

Snark aside, that leaves what is now looking more and more like the most likely outcome: Speaker John Boehner goes nowhere. He is forced to keep his leadership position because there is nobody else House Republicans can agree upon. Holding the vote for the next speaker is entirely at the discretion of the sitting speaker, so Boehner is simply not going to have such a vote until his caucus can guarantee one candidate will indeed get 218 votes. Until that happens, Boehner will remain in charge, whether he likes it or not.

Which leads us straight into a bout of conspiratorial thinking. We have absolutely nothing to base this on, we're just offering the meme up to the wider online world to see where it goes. What if this was all some sort of brilliant move by Boehner to show the Tea Partiers that not supporting Republican leadership leads straight to chaos? "See -- you can't even agree among yourselves," Boehner (in this scenario) is pointing out. "How are you going to take on Obama and the Senate Democrats when you can't even get your own act together?!?" It'd be awfully Machiavellian of Boehner to have engineered this chaos as an instructional tool, but it certainly could free him of ever paying any attention to the Tea Partiers again.

Maybe Boehner is actually going to be the Denny Hastert figure. By showing the world the Tea Partiers' chaos and impotence, Boehner could be free to begin operating the House in an entirely new fashion. Budget bill due? Boehner could -- from the very start, and not waiting until the last minute -- sit down with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Mitch McConnell, and hash out some bill that is acceptable enough to both sides to gain the necessary votes in both houses. Boehner might let the Tea Partiers have a few tantrums on the House floor, but then he'd quickly move on to passing bills in a timely fashion. By doing so, he'd actually wind up advancing the conservative agenda a lot further than the Tea Partiers have ever managed to do, since he'd be able to write these bills weighted heavily with Republican priorities (but without deal-killing measures like defunding Planned Parenthood or overturning Obamacare). The Tea Partiers would scream and gibber, but they'd have no power to change the outcome.

This is what John Boehner has wanted to do all along, it should be noted. He's always wanted to engage in such deal-making, because he thinks he's pretty good at it (and he thinks that's what the speaker of the House is supposed to do). He has been stymied at every turn, but if he now shifted the way the House operated back to its historical role in legislating, there'd be nothing the Tea Partiers could do, at least not until they came up with their own candidate who could get the necessary 218 votes.

Do we really think Boehner is capable of such a Machiavellian plot? Not really, if truth be told. If this does come to pass -- Boehner moving into the Hastert role -- then it is likely just coincidence. By all reports, Boehner was shocked that McCarthy had to withdraw yesterday. Unless he's a lot better actor than we've so far seen, it's hard to argue that he would have been so shocked if this was all some master plan of his.

Anyway, that's where we're at in the heart of the chaos. Either Paul Ryan is going to magically save the House Republicans by riding to the rescue on his flying unicorn, or John Boehner is going to remain speaker of the House until at least December of 2016. The safe bet right now would (we suppose) be on Boehner keeping his job, but in these chaotic times, your guess is as good as ours as to how this is all going to play out.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

As can be expected in such a time of Republican chaos, many Democrats and their fellow travelers were more than happy to point out the ludicrous nature of Republicans not being able to come up with a single candidate for what is supposed to be one of the most prestigious and powerful jobs in Washington. Being speaker of the House is (or used to be) an honor, a position of leadership, and a much-sought-after job. Not these days.

While many stood out in their reactions to the Republican chaos, there was one response that perfectly captured the situation. Representative Mark Takano, a Democrat from California, put together a hilarious draft "for hire" Craigslist posting. The mix of snark and normal job posting language makes it an instant classic in the world of political satire. Our favorite (as mentioned previously) is the "Babysitting experience STRONGLY PREFERRED" bit, since that one phrase sums Boehner's past problems up better than we've yet heard anywhere else.

Here's the text of the Takano's fake job vacancy ad:

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE (Washington, D.C.)

Are you an American citizen? Do you have experience negotiating hostage situations? Are you ready for the challenge of a lifetime? Then this job is for you!

We are seeking an extremely patient and motivated person to lead the U.S. House of Representatives.

Responsibilities includes [sic]:

  • Keeping the government open
  • Avoiding a default on U.S. debt
  • Maintaining women's access to health care
  • Explaining to the "Freedom Caucus" the concepts of compromise and democratic governance

Requirements:

  • Proven ability to work with irrational people who pursue narrow priorities at the expense of millions of others
  • Proficiency in Word, Excel and PowerPoint
  • Babysitting experience STRONGLY PREFERRED
  • No Congressional experience necessary

RINOs NEED NOT APPLY.

Brilliant! A hilarious bit of icing for the chaos cake we've all been served up, this week. For gloriously using satire to point out the collapse of the House Republican Party, Mark Takano has more than earned himself a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate Representative Mark Takano on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts. And his sense of humor, of course.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Hillary Clinton moved further towards progressivism this week, when she kind-of sort-of came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade deal. This is a tough sell for Clinton, since a lot of the negotiations towards writing the agreement happened while she was running the State Department. But what struck us was the monstrous amount of wiggle room she left herself while supposedly announcing she wouldn't support the deal. Here's the quote, from an interview on PBS: "As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it." So, she's not in favor of the deal? Well, not really -- that can be parsed as she's not in favor of what she just learned about it, but would support the deal with a few changes. Also note that "as of today" qualifier. For such a lawyerly answer, Clinton at least deserves a (Dis-)Honorable Mention. Contrast her statement to just about anything Bernie Sanders has said on the subject during the past six months, to see why.

But our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award goes to a political action committee this week. The "Draft Biden" group was formed (unsurprisingly) to draft Joe Biden to run for the presidency. Pretty self-explanatory. However, the group made news this week when it announced it would begin airing a television ad to convince Joe that the time had come to throw his hat in the ring. That's not all that controversial, as similar groups have launched similar efforts in the past to convince politicians that they already have a support team behind them.

What was controversial was the ad itself, which was a pretty naked bit of emotional manipulation. The entire spin of the ad was, in essence, that Joe Biden has tragically lost family members -- multiple times -- and because of this, he'd make a great president. Sound cynical? Watch the ad and decide for yourself.

By week's end, the ad was hastily shelved, after Biden let it be known that he didn't exactly approve that message. Joe Biden still hasn't made up his mind. It's nice that there's a group of people devoted to trying to convince him to do so, but they need to seriously readjust how they're going about it. Emotional propaganda probably isn't going to help Joe make up his mind, one way or another.

For their ham-handed first ad, the group Draft Biden is this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Back to the drawing board, guys.

[We routinely refuse to provide links to campaign web sites, and we're extending this ban to political action committees supporting candidates, so you'll have to look up Draft Biden's contact information on your own, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 365 (10/9/15)

Obviously, this was a one-subject week, after Kevin McCarthy's stunning announcement. So this week's talking points are all centered on the ongoing circus in the House Republican caucus. As James Carville once famously said: "When you're opponent's drowning, toss him an anchor."

All of these are, in one form or another, designed to get people thinking about why they'd ever want to vote for a Republican if this is the best they can manage to do when they get to Washington. More and more, the 2016 election is shaping up to be one for Democrats to score a record victory, due to the Republican strategy of self-immolation.

I mean, seriously, when the best answer to a crisis is to return to the status quo which created the crisis in the first place, it's pretty easy to point out the intellectual bankruptcy being displayed by the other side. "Babysitting experience STRONGLY PREFERRED" is still the best way to put it, but here are seven other suggestions.

 

1
   What deep bench?

Is it too late in the year for baseball metaphors?

"For quite some time, Republicans have been bragging about how 'deep' their 'bench' is -- how they had more qualified people to draw upon to run for president than the Democrats did. Well, Republicans have more House seats than they have in almost a century. So where is this vaunted 'deep bench' in the House? Nobody wants to lead the House Republicans? Nobody? Wow. So much for that deep bench -- in the end, that bench looks pretty darn shallow."

 

2
   Speaker Trump?

Here's another fun one to try out.

"Maybe the House Republicans can use the vacant speaker's chair to do a test drive of all their presidential prospects. Put each of them in charge of the House for two weeks, to see what they'd get done. Of course, this might horrify some Republicans, when they consider what Speaker Trump or Speaker Carson would actually do. This brings up an interesting point -- if you can't imagine Donald Trump or Ted Cruz leading the House of Representatives, why should the rest of us give them the job of leading the country?"

 

3
   Boo!

A timely reference if ever there was one.

"I think that for Hallowe'en this year, I'm going to dress up as a Freedom Caucus member and go around to all the House Republicans' offices. I can't imagine a scarier costume for them to see standing on their porch than that, personally. Boo! I've come to eat your brains! Everybody run!"

 

4
   Why not throw them under the nearest bus?

This one really cuts to the bone. To be asked of a non-Tea Party Republican in the House, of course.

"Why don't you guys grow a spine and just throw the Freedom Caucus under the nearest bus? They've done nothing for you or your party except make you look like clowns and fools to the entire nation, after all. We Democrats know there are still House Republicans left who want to actually get on with the business of governing the country, so why don't you just walk away from the Freedom Caucus crazies? Why not reach across the aisle so we can both get some things done and solve a few problems? You've seen what they have to offer -- pointless and suicidal political grandstanding that accomplishes precisely nothing. Whenever you get tired of that, Democrats are more than willing to help you make the Freedom Caucus completely irrelevant. At this point, you seem like you don't have much of anything left to lose."

 

5
   How about Nancy?

If that last one wasn't snarky enough, go for the gold!

"Nancy Pelosi has around 190 solid votes to make her the next speaker. Unlike pretty much every Republican I see, from John Boehner on down, it now looks like there are no Republicans at all who want the job. I don't blame them, really. But seeing as how that's the case, if 30 Republicans decided they were tired of watching a Republican speaker do an impossible job of trying to keep all their party's factions happy, they could just shift their votes to Pelosi. If some House Republicans care more about hating whoever is speaker than they care about advancing any kind of agenda, then why not give them a Democratic speaker to hate? They'd really be much happier hating Pelosi, and with a few dozen Republicans willing to work across the aisle, the country would be happier because there would be no more shutdowns or debt defaults on the horizon. The more I think about it, the more I see Speaker Pelosi as the answer to all the House Republicans' problems."

 

6
   What, exactly, was the point?

Have this one handy if Boehner announces he won't be stepping down, after all.

"So after all that chaos, we're going to wind up right back where we started from? Really? Wow. John Boehner wants to retire as speaker, but now he can't because there is nobody else to do the job -- that's just stunning when you think about it. So what exactly was the point of all this drama? Boehner's still got a faction he can't control, and the faction wants to blow up everything if they don't get 100 percent of their way. The Tea Partiers are incapable of leading, and they refuse to follow. Sounds like a recipe for not a whole lot getting done in the next year."

 

7
   We'll prove it!

An oldie but a goodie, to end on.

"You know, Democrats like to make a joke about a mythical Republican campaign slogan, and the events of this week seem to prove it more than anything else in recent memory. Republicans gained control of the House and the Senate, and they seem absolutely incapable of getting anything done -- they can't even find anyone willing to lead them in the House. It all goes to show that even though they don't actually use the slogan when they campaign, it is precisely what Republicans are all about: 'Government doesn't work -- elect us and we'll prove it!'"

-- 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

 

131 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [365] -- Chaos Reigns!”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joe Biden still hasn't made up his mind. It's nice that there's a group of people devoted to trying to convince him to do so, but they need to seriously readjust how they're going about it. Emotional propaganda probably isn't going to help Joe make up his mind, one way or another.

    That's pretty hilarious. A political ad that uses emotional manipulation.

    Are you kidding me? I mean, give me one political ad that doesn't do that and I'll give you a waste of ad money.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Emotional propaganda probably isn't going to help Joe make up his mind, one way or another.

    Propaganda is a pretty strong term. What about this ad is misleading or untrue, from an emotional standpoint?

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Here is my problem, in a nutshell, with this week's MDDOTW award ...

    Joe Biden has been the victim of emotional manipulation and real emotional propaganda throughout his entire political career. And, this has contributed to the ease with which so many political commentators dismiss Biden and can't seem to talk about him without breaking out into laughter. Consequently, too many average Americans have never taken Biden seriously as a human being, much less as a political candidate for high office.

    I think that the sympathy generally and even genuinely felt for Biden in the wake of the tragic death of his son is the only reason that mainstream political commentators have not been treating Biden with their usual dismissive attitudes.

    So, when a group of long-time Biden supporters put out a political ad that attempts to begin to put a human face on the man they believe should be the next POTUS for the countless Americans who only know Biden through the lens of the asinine media storyline on him I say, it's about time!

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The entire spin of the ad was, in essence, that Joe Biden has tragically lost family members -- multiple times -- and because of this, he'd make a great president.

    Seriously, that's what you think the premise of this ad is?

    That would be a very shallow premise for an ad but I can certainly imagine that many Americans would think that is what the Draft Biden group is saying in this ad. It surprises me that you do, too, Chris. :(

    Who is cynical here?

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Maybe one more ad like this one and Joe Biden won't have to worry about running for anything, anymore ... he'll be seen as the shallow excuse for a political candidate that the media has always thought of him as and that will be that.

    All things considered, I am really beginning to worry about the future of America, never mind the fulfilment of it's promise ...

  6. [6] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth: This is a serious question -- I'm not looking for a debate, I really want to know -- what is it about Biden that you love so much? I grant you he seems like a nice person and I have expressed a general liking for him before. I've also expressed unhappiness with some of his record, especially the bankruptcey bill. I certainly don't see him as a savior and very much like both Hillary and Bernie for different reasons so don't feel any need for him to enter the race. Hillary is taking hits that were entirely predictable and predicted, and Joe would also take hits that are entirely predictable. He's not going to just sail in and be lauded by everyone. Hillary and Bernie both have agendas -- they want to be President for specific reasons. Hillary released a plan today about handling banking that Matt Yglesias at Vox, for example, reviewed very favorably. What's Joe's agenda? Why is he better than Hillary or Bernie, in your opinion?

  7. [7] 
    Paula wrote:

    Chris: can you save a comment that got eaten?

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think you should start making copies, or something ... :)

  9. [9] 
    Paula wrote:

    Sigh, yeah. I usually do but I hadn't posted for awhile and I forgot...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    For such a lawyerly answer, Clinton at least deserves a (Dis-)Honorable Mention. Contrast her statement to just about anything Bernie Sanders has said on the subject during the past six months, to see why.

    And this is surprising??

    She's a Clinton... The infamous "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" tells you all you need to know about a Clinton...

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Not much to add, except that I think we can rule out that Boehner resigned in a brilliant strategic move.

    He has a date with a bottle that he really wants to keep.

    Is there a legal obligation on his part to ensure a new speaker is chosen before he leaves?
    I mean, isn't there a fifth option where he wishes them good luck and hails a cab to the airport?

    A

  12. [12] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    How do you explain Biden not getting behind this ad?

    A

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    He has a date with a bottle that he really wants to keep.

    "And you can PROVE that, right? Oh yea, that's right. I forgot. You were absent the day they taught LAW at Law School.."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Boehner's still got a faction he can't control, and the faction wants to blow up everything if they don't get 100 percent of their way.

    Hmmmmmm

    That sounds like the entirety of the Democrat Party... :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [10] altohone

    Boehner's resignation cannot take effect until a new Speaker is elected. Therefore he is obligated to stay until such time that they can find a candidate who can win 218 Republican votes.

    Currently the House Freedom Caucus has decided to vote as a bloc. They have 36 members. 247 House Republicans minus 36 House Freedonm Caucus members equals 211; 7 votes short of the 218 needed.

  16. [16] 
    altohone wrote:

    Thanks Mopshell.

    Sucks for Boehner.

    altohone

  17. [17] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    The man is famous for it.
    Prove me wrong (to borrow a phrase) you wingnut troll.

    A

    PS- 5th time you've used that quote since I've been here I believe... aren't you boring yourself too?

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Prove me wrong (to borrow a phrase) you wingnut troll.

    Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational rebuttal and must therefore respond with immature personal attacks and childish name-calling. Your concession of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant...

    You made the claim... Now you back it up..

    The man is famous for it.

    Then it should be easy to find the facts to support your accusation.. :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Pastafarian Dan wrote:

    Even if Boehner stays through the end of his term and remains as Speaker because no one else can get the 218 votes, what happens in January 2017? If the GOP holds onto the House (an event too likely to happen due to GOP gerrymandering and voter suppression laws at the state level), then who can they elect as the Speaker for the next Congress? Because Boehner isn't going to run for reelection to Congress.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    PD,

    A lot can happen between now and 2017.. If the GOP takes the White House (which is all but a certainty) then I think you'll find that Republicans will fall all over themselves to be Speaker..

    (an event too likely to happen due to GOP gerrymandering and voter suppression laws at the state level)

    Com'on... That poor deceased equine is long dead. Let the beast rest in peace...

    Ya'all like "code words"...

    "Gerrymandering" and "voter suppression" are simply "code words" for "Americans don't much like the way Democrats have ruined the country"

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Here's what the Republicans need to get their ship of state moving again. As usual, YouTube has a helpful instructional video. With some minor adjustments just about anybody could succeed as Speaker, from seasoned veteran to Palin.

    First rearrange the House benches in a more linear fashion.

    Next, a trip to the local hardware store for some "swing set" chains, which are cheaper than purpose built restraints (fiscal responsibility).

    Proceed on line to Handcuff Warehouse dotcom (I'm not making this up) for some quality manacles, don't scrimp on these.

    Finally hire the guy with the drums in the video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXh1tW16V-8

  22. [22] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Here's a little HR video that might help as well. Bit, dated but gets the essentials across.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfA371zhfHo

  23. [23] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Has anybody asked Terd Cruz? He seems like he'd like to be Speaker of the House. He doesn't do anything in the senate anyway.

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How do you explain Biden not getting behind this ad?

    Why do you need an explanation for that?

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    How do you explain Biden not getting behind this ad?

    Why do you need an explanation for that?

    I'm guessing because Biden didn't like the ad..

    But what do I know.. :^/

    Heh

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    John M wrote:

    CW wrote:

    "I think that for Hallowe'en this year, I'm going to dress up as a Freedom Caucus member and go around to all the House Republicans' offices. I can't imagine a scarier costume for them to see standing on their porch than that, personally. Boo! I've come to eat your brains! Everybody run!"

    BEST comment I've seen yet! My only question is, wouldn't they die of starvation for lack of brains for them to eat in the first place??? :-D

  27. [27] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "If the GOP takes the White House (which is all but a certainty)"

    I think you will live to eat those words Michale. Want to have a bet regarding that statement? After all, I see that you are completely dismissing all the polls so far showing all the current major Democratic Presidential candidates beating all the major Republicans ones in any hypothetical election. Not to mention ignoring the Electoral College math that is heavily stacked against any Republican candidate in the race to the White House.

  28. [28] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It takes a lot for me to feel sympathy for John Boehner.

    Don't those freedom caucus nuts know that you're only supposed to talk about all that crazy anti-government Ayn Rand nonsense until you get elected?

    It's what you use to dupe the masses. Once you get elected, you're supposed to change your tune.

    Ok, this still doesn't make me feel sorry for John Boehner. Couldn't happen to a more corrupt guy. I still remember him as the guy who got busted handing out checks from the tobacco industry on the House floor.

    I love Takano's fake Craigslist posting. It is so true.

    I also have new respect for Paul Ryan. He's smart enough to know that this position is a complete no-win situation. He is realizing what Democrats have realized for years - that it's impossible to work with people whose hatred of the government is so deep that they're rooting for the apocalypse.

    Very interesting times.

    -David

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    After all, I see that you are completely dismissing all the polls so far showing all the current major Democratic Presidential candidates beating all the major Republicans ones in any hypothetical election.

    If you use old polls, sure..

    The current polls show ALL the GOP candidates beating Hillary... Hell even CARLY comes out on top!

    Not to mention ignoring the Electoral College math that is heavily stacked against any Republican candidate in the race to the White House.

    Iddn't it funny how you Lefties whine and complain about alleged GOP gerrymandering, yet BRAG about the Electoral stacking..

    But here's the thing, even with the stacking you Dems have..

    Almost 60% of Americans think Hillary is a liar..

    And she is the BEST candidate you Dems have to offer... :D

    What does THAT tell you??

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that your "champion" Hillary has dropped TEN POINTS in less than a week..

    And THIS is the candidate yer betting on??

    "Oh Johnny, did you back the wrong horse..."
    -Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS II

    :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news..

    Hindu woman fired from US military for 'witchcraft'
    http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/hindu-woman-fired-from-us-military-for-witchcraft/article7744534.ece#comments

    It should be easy to determine if she is a witch...

    "Build a bridge out o' her.."

    :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very interesting times.

    Hardly the word I would use.

  33. [33] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "I am also constrained to point out that your "champion" Hillary has dropped TEN POINTS in less than a week.."

    Who said I was backing Hillary? If you check my previous posts, I believe you will find that I supported Bernie.

    "Iddn't it funny how you Lefties whine and complain about alleged GOP gerrymandering, yet BRAG about the Electoral stacking.."

    Ok, let's go THERE then, if you insist Michale. How about the fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 most recent Presidential elections, including Al Gore?

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who said I was backing Hillary? If you check my previous posts, I believe you will find that I supported Bernie.

    And, if Hillary is the Dem Candidate??

    Then she is your champion...

    Am I wrong?? :D

    Ok, let's go THERE then, if you insist Michale. How about the fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 most recent Presidential elections, including Al Gore?

    And if the popular vote had ANY relevance in our elections, then you would have a point..

    But it doesn't so you don't...

    Besides, there is always the vaunted Democrat process..

    Vote early and vote often... Get dead people to vote Dem.. Get dogs to vote Dem.. Etc etc etc :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This conversation looks like a classic case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    But since you want to bring up the popular vote..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that Hillary can win the popular vote??

    When over SIXTY PERCENT think she is a liar??

    I mean, honestly...

    Haven't we learned out lesson on voting for a POTUS *SOLELY* to break a glass ceiling??

    Sure, a black person can be POTUS.. But THIS black person is an incompetent moron...

    Sure, a woman can be POTUS.. But THAT woman is a liar, a cheat and a conniving rhymes with witch...

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    This conversation looks like a classic case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

    Which?? :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    All of it ... here and everywhere.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here, there, everywhere, up the street, down the stairs.

    :D

    I have some choice juicy new information about the Iran deal??

    Hillary speaks out against it..

    It violates Federal Law...

    Etc etc etc.. :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regarding Obama in Roseburg...

    Here’s What Was Waiting for President Obama When He Arrived in Roseburg in Aftermath of School Shooting
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/09/heres-what-was-waiting-for-president-obama-when-he-arrived-in-roseburg-in-aftermath-of-school-shooting/

    I tried to warn him....

    He is not welcome in Roseburg..

    My personal favorite...

    United We Stand, Obama We Fail

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    [President Obama] is not welcome in Roseburg..

    As an outsider looking in who tries to keep herself reasonably informed, I am deeply troubled by what appears to be an increasing mean-spiritedness that is characterizing the thinking of many Americans. While this may be only a minority of the nation, their essentially fear-based politics does seem to be a growing phenomenon than can become a very destructive force, if it hasn't already become so.

    It has become too sad to watch and discouraging to the extreme and certainly not something I want to be a part of, here or anywhere else.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I meant to ask you, how did the family members of the victims of the massacre welcome President Obama? Were they appreciative of his time to be with them at this terrible time?

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My personal favorite...United We Stand, Obama We Fail

    That's just sad, Michale because, I know you really believe that. Even during the darkest days of the Bush/Cheney administration, I was still rooting for them to make the country better ... despite the many signs of incompetence and misguided policies.

    Your personal favourite has been the favourite of many Americans since the very moment President Obama and Vice President Biden were sworn into office in 2009.

    I may as well live in an alternate universe. Maybe I do.

    When and how did America become so self-destructive, and Americans so defeatist? Can it be traced back to 9/11 and the response to it? Did it only begin in earnest on the day Obama/Biden took office?

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    I meant to ask you, how did the family members of the victims of the massacre welcome President Obama? Were they appreciative of his time to be with them at this terrible time?

    No they were not Liz and let me tell you why..

    Even before they bodies were cold and counted, Obama said

    "We have to politicize this tragedy"

    He flat out STATED that he was using the tragedy to push an unpopular and COMPLETELY useless agenda...

    Now, I have to ask.. If you were one of those families who just lost a loved one and, while the bodies were still warm, the POTUS gets on the air and says that we have to use this tragedy to push our agenda..??

    Would YOU welcome him??

    I am surprised that no one there spit in his face..

    Because THAT is what he deserved..

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    My response to Obama??

    "Keep on steppin'..."
    -Nick Fury, CAPTAIN AMERICA-WINTER SOLDIER

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's just sad, Michale because, I know you really believe that. Even during the darkest days of the Bush/Cheney administration, I was still rooting for them to make the country better ... despite the many signs of incompetence and misguided policies.

    Unlike the Democrats, Bush never politicized 9/11 or the response. Bush was quoted as specifically STATING that politics was NOT to be mentioned..

    Bush has more integrity in his little pinky nail than Obama has in his entire body...

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can't be a part of this, anymore, Michale.

    I'm sorry and good luck!

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can't be a part of this, anymore, Michale.

    I'm sorry and good luck!

    I am sorry as well..

    But somethings transcend politics..

    There are some lines that should NEVER be crossed...

    And politicizing a crowd-based mass shooting to score political points??

    THAT is one of those lines that should NEVER be crossed...

    And ESPECIALLY not blatantly STATING that the line is being crossed..

    This is right up there with the Democrat Party failing to support Bush in the Counter Terrorism policies that they later whole-heartedly embraced under Obama...

    Another reason to despise the Democrat Party...

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    akadjian wrote:

    When and how did America become so self-destructive, and Americans so defeatist? Can it be traced back to 9/11 and the response to it?

    I think America crapped it's pants in fear after 9/11.

    When so many think the only answer to everything is force, it's a sure sign we're afraid.

    -David

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    When so many think the only answer to everything is force, it's a sure sign we're afraid.

    No one advocated that the answer to "everything" is force...

    On the other hand, in the here and now, the Left advocates that the answer to everything is diplomacy...

    Like it or not, we live in a dangerous world.. A world filled with psychotics and scumbags who won't care if we bow and say "pretty please" and if we make calls to "politicize" tragedies..

    Didn't the Left go positively ape shit over the Benghazi Hearings because, according to the Left, those hearings were "politicizing" 4 deaths in a foreign land due to terrorist action??

    Yet, not a peep from the Left when our PRESIDENT explicitly STATES IN PLAIN ENGLISH that we must "politicize" when 9 people are gunned down in cold blood, just for being christian...

    So, if I understand the Left correctly..

    Republicans politicize tragedies = BAD

    Democrats politicize tragedies = GOOD

    Got it... :^/

    Yea.. Absolutely NO hypocrisy there!!

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    I also have new respect for Paul Ryan. He's smart enough to know that this position is a complete no-win situation. He is realizing what Democrats have realized for years - that it's impossible to work with people whose hatred of the government is so deep that they're rooting for the apocalypse.

    As opposed to Democrats whose hatred of Bush was so deep that they would side with Al Qaeda against this country...

    What's your point again??

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tell ya what, people..

    Before, I issued a challenge. Anyone who could give me a SINGLE suggestion for laws that could prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings, I would drop the issue forevermore..

    No one could..

    So, I'll give ya'all another opportunity to shut me up on this issue..

    Just answer me one question..

    Why is it bad, evil, wrong, abhorrent for the GOP to "politicize" 4 deaths at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi.....

    But it's perfectly acceptable for the Democrat Party to
    "politicize" the execution of 9 christians by a psycho scumbag in Oregon??

    Anyone??

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "And if the popular vote had ANY relevance in our elections, then you would have a point..

    But it doesn't so you don't..."

    Michale, this whole thread between you and I started because you made the statement about how inevitable you thought it was going to be that the next President was going to be a Republican. I pointed out to you how unlikely that would be simply given the Electoral College math as it actually exists in the real world. You then proceeded to criticize me for somehow supporting an undemocratic way of electing candidates I like when it is in my favor, because I am a "Liberal Democrat" when that was not what I was doing at all. I actually think, like many Americans, that we should do away with the Electoral College, but no matter. So I tried a different tack. Again, to point out to you how difficult it would be to elect a Republican President, I pointed out the remarkable and unprecedented string of popular vote victories Democrats have continued to have recently. Since, the Electoral College generally follows popular vote totals and only twice in history has not, that I know of, in declaring the winner, this is not a point without ANY relevance as you so cavalierly declare.

    Have you ever noticed Michale that when someone else counters a statement you have made, you suddenly become very dismissive of the whole argument you yourself was trying to make in the first place?

  54. [54] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Vote early and vote often... Get dead people to vote Dem.. Get dogs to vote Dem.. Etc etc etc :D"

    That statement makes for great anecdote, but you have no real world proof to support it. Just like Reagan's statement in the 80's about "Welfare Queens." If demagoguery is all you got, then you have already lost the argument.

    This directly ties into the point that Elizabeth was making about the mean-spiritedness creeping into American politics which has been going on for many years now, and recently seems to be getting much worse.

  55. [55] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Bush never politicized 9/11 or the response."

    What would you call the second Iraq War then, when Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11?

    "Do you HONESTLY believe that Hillary can win the popular vote??
    When over SIXTY PERCENT think she is a liar??"

    Yes I do. For many reasons. They may think shes is dishonest, but she still has wide support. She is still better than any Republican alternative. There is a disconnect between people supporting a candidate for their policies, and giving them a pass on their personal character. Look at John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Chris Christie, etc. at least as far as being elected to their first term in office. Americans are very forgiving the first time.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have you ever noticed Michale that when someone else counters a statement you have made, you suddenly become very dismissive of the whole argument you yourself was trying to make in the first place?

    That's because you completely ignore my points..

    How can a Democrat win if 60% of the country think that the presumptive Democrat candidate is a liar???

    All you do is the exact same thing you accuse me of...

    Ignoring my points and talking over you...

    The problem is practically everyone here doesn't even ADDRESS any of my points...

    At best, my points are ignored..

    At worse, I am personally attacked and called childish names..

    But hay, I'll be yer huckleberry...

    We'll go shot for shot. You make a point... I'll address it.. Then I'll make a point.. And YOU address it.

    OK??

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    What would you call the second Iraq War then, when Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11?

    Mistaken intel on a nuclear program. Confirmed intel on CWMDs..

    Yes I do. For many reasons. They may think shes is dishonest, but she still has wide support. She is still better than any Republican alternative.

    In your opinion...

    Her support is sinking fast and there is no end in sight..

    Look at John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Chris Christie, etc. at least as far as being elected to their first term in office. Americans are very forgiving the first time.

    Hillary had her "first time" 20 years ago when she viciously attacked Bill Clinton's mistresses...

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's because you completely ignore my points..

    How can a Democrat win if 60% of the country think that the presumptive Democrat candidate is a liar???

    I stand corrected.. :D

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    This directly ties into the point that Elizabeth was making about the mean-spiritedness creeping into American politics which has been going on for many years now, and recently seems to be getting much worse.

    OK... Let's look at this..

    What would you attribute such hostility too??

    Could it possibly be when one political party refers to members of the other political party as "terrorists" and "arsonists" and "hostage takers"??

    Could THAT have anything to do with the mean-spiritedness that you and Liz are referring to??

    Hmmmmmm???

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, if ya'all are going to complain about the "mean spiritedness" in politics without acknowledging your OWN Party's contributions to that mean spiritedness, then it simply comes across as nothing but MORE partisan mean spiritedness...

    Am I wrong??

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Why is it bad, evil, wrong, abhorrent for the GOP to "politicize" 4 deaths at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi.....

    But it's perfectly acceptable for the Democrat Party to
    "politicize" the execution of 9 christians by a psycho scumbag in Oregon??"

    Because regarding the Benghazi probe, its sole purpose was to conduct a cynically targeted attack on a specific politician for the express purpose by the political opposition of damaging that politician for their own political gain, without actually trying to discover any actual implementable remedies that might mitigate any
    shortcomings regarding real world security or other issues.

    While in the second case, in the Oregon shootings, it is meant to galvanize actions by recalcitrant politicians not for personal political gain but to implement policies that "might" make things better for Americans, and in any case which a majority of the people in poll after poll has shown, despite Michale's opinion to the contrary, to be widely popular and supported.

  62. [62] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Hillary had her "first time" 20 years ago when she viciously attacked Bill Clinton's mistresses..."

    In your opinion.... :-)

  63. [63] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "I mean, if ya'all are going to complain about the "mean spiritedness" in politics without acknowledging your OWN Party's contributions to that mean spiritedness, then it simply comes across as nothing but MORE partisan mean spiritedness..."

    Did I ever specifically accuse the Republican Party as being solely responsible? I will in fact, gladly concede that there is plenty of responsibility to spread around for the sad state of affairs we currently find ourselves in regarding political discourse in this country. Does that satisfy you Michale so that we can now move on?

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because regarding the Benghazi probe, its sole purpose was to conduct a cynically targeted attack on a specific politician for the express purpose by the political opposition of damaging that politician for their own political gain, without actually trying to discover any actual implementable remedies that might mitigate any
    shortcomings regarding real world security or other issues.

    Actually it's not...

    That's your partisan opinion unsupported by any facts whatsoever..

    While in the second case, in the Oregon shootings, it is meant to galvanize actions by recalcitrant politicians not for personal political gain but to implement policies that "might" make things better for Americans, and in any case which a majority of the people in poll after poll has shown, despite Michale's opinion to the contrary, to be widely popular and supported.

    NO PROPOSED laws supported by Democrats would do ANYTHING to prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings...

    NONE... ZERO... ZIP... NADA..

    The ONLY ideas by Democrats are "Wouldn't It Be Nice Laws"... Like banning a historical battle flag..

    If you think there is a good idea that would prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings, you have a golden opportunity to shut me up on the issue. :D

    Now, there ARE some good ideas on the Right that WOULD prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings...

    Will Democrats entertain those??

    Nope..

    Ergo, it's nothing but a crass attempt to use a tragedy to further a partisan, unnecessary and useless political agenda...

    Obama might as well gone to the mic and said, "We're making sure we don't let this tragedy go to waste.."

    The simple fact is, Democrats don't mind politicizing a tragedy as long as THEY are the ones doing the politicizing...

    Benghazi and Roseburg proved that beyond ANY doubt..

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    In your opinion.... :-)

    No, it's not my opinion that Hillary viciously attacked Bill's mistresses..

    It's documented fact...

    :D

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did I ever specifically accuse the Republican Party as being solely responsible? I will in fact, gladly concede that there is plenty of responsibility to spread around for the sad state of affairs we currently find ourselves in regarding political discourse in this country. Does that satisfy you Michale so that we can now move on?

    Hay, ya'all brought up the mean-spiritedness, not me...

    Now that you have to acknowledge your own Party's culpability, all of the sudden, you want to move on??

    Sure.. By all means.. Move on... :D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    But thank you for addressing the blatant hypocrisy of the Democrat Party over Benghazi and Roseburg.. You said, pretty much what I expected, but at least you had the moral courage to stand up and be counted for your beliefs, morally whacked though they may be.. :D

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    Prove me wrong (to borrow a phrase) you wingnut troll.

    "Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational rebuttal and must therefore respond with immature personal attacks and childish name-calling. Your concession of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant...

    You made the claim... Now you back it up"

    I take it you can be counted on to follow your own words?
    Right?
    Right?

    Or, are you unaware that I borrowed the phrase from you?
    You have no idea how much I enjoy having you point out your own hypocrisy.
    Pathetic wingnut troll.
    And, the truth I state about what you write is not a personal attack. Nor is it opinion. It's just fact.
    You prove it every day.

    A

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did I ever specifically accuse the Republican Party as being solely responsible? I will in fact, gladly concede that there is plenty of responsibility to spread around for the sad state of affairs we currently find ourselves in regarding political discourse in this country. Does that satisfy you Michale so that we can now move on?

    I may be giving away one of my trade secrets here... But, what the hell.. We're all friends..

    The way to avoid this "trap" is to acknowledge the shortcomings of your own party when ya'all want to slam the opposing Party..

    For example...

    "Yea, I know the Democrat Party really REALLY sucks in the mean-spiritedness department, but those Republican morons really take the cake!!"

    Something like that and I would be hard pressed to have any kind of decent argument in response..

    But by ignoring ya'alls own Party's culpability, ya'all leave me a VERY fertile debate/argument.. :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hay, ya'all brought up the mean-spiritedness, not me...

    The point, Michale, is that many of the comments posted on this site are very mean-spirited and your comments are a perfect example of this exceedingly unproductive form of discussion.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem is practically everyone here doesn't even ADDRESS any of my points...

    At best, my points are ignored..

    At worse, I am personally attacked and called childish names..

    Pathetic wingnut troll.
    And, the truth I state about what you write is not a personal attack. Nor is it opinion. It's just fact.
    You prove it every day.

    I rest my case... :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    The point, Michale, is that many of the comments posted on this site are very mean-spirited and your comments are a perfect example of this exceedingly unproductive form of discussion.

    Politics is a contact sport...

    But if the goal is to minimize the meanness, doesn't it behoove one to make sure one's own house is clean first??

    Something about stones and glass houses??

    Obama and Hillary et al are all but claiming that Republicans *WANT* mass shootings and gun murder tragedies..

    If that is not "mean spiritedness" what is??

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Before complaining about Democrats and Republican politicians and their supporters, you might want to try addressing your own propensity to mean-spirited comments and apparent unwillingness to engage in healthy and robust debate about the issues and challenges that face all of us and our nations today and tomorrow.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Before complaining about Democrats and Republican politicians and their supporters, you might want to try addressing your own propensity to mean-spirited comments and apparent unwillingness to engage in healthy and robust debate about the issues and challenges that face all of us and our nations today and tomorrow.

    I am ALWAYS ready to do that. You KNOW that..

    But when dealings with the likes of Biga and his ilk, can I really be blamed for being a tad testy at times??

    I am ALL about rationally discussing the issues and challenges facing us in the here and now..

    I have spent almost a week BEGGING people to give me some laws that will prevent or help prevent mass shootings.. The only rational response came from RD but wasn't what I had asked for. Basically the ONLY thing coming from the Left are "Wouldn't It Be Nice" Laws..

    A crowd-based mass shooting in Charleston kills 9 christians..

    "Wouldn't it be nice if we could ban a historical battle flag"
    -Democrats

    If ya'all don't have a solution, then acknowledge that, I can drop it and we move on...

    I mean, honestly Liz.. Didn't you cringe, JUST a little, when Obama said that we must "politicize" crowd-based mass shooting tragedies??

    ESPECIALLY when the ENTIRE week before hand was Democrats and Left Wingers whining and crying and bitching about how the REPUBLICANS were (so-called) "politicizing" Benghazi...

    I mean, honestly... Didn't you roll your eyes a LITTLE??

    If ya want the rancor and meanness out of politics, or more accurately, out of Weigantia, then it seems to me that it behooves ya'all to reign in people who CAN'T have discussions WITHOUT rancor and meanness and name-calling and insults...

    I'm willing to do my part.. :D

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because regarding the Benghazi probe, its sole purpose was to conduct a cynically targeted attack on a specific politician for the express purpose by the political opposition of damaging that politician for their own political gain, without actually trying to discover any actual implementable remedies that might mitigate any shortcomings regarding real world security or other issues.

    Of course, the FACTS say different..

    http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-real-benghazi-investigation-1444345572-lMyQjAxMTA1OTA1OTQwNTk0Wj

    But here in Weigantia...

    "We don't need no stinkin' facts!!!"

    :D

    While in the second case, in the Oregon shootings, it is meant to galvanize actions by recalcitrant politicians not for personal political gain but to implement policies that "might" make things better for Americans, and in any case which a majority of the people in poll after poll has shown, despite Michale's opinion to the contrary, to be widely popular and supported.

    Yea, widely popular and supported by Democrats..

    But would the prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings??

    NO THEY WOULD NOT...

    So, why are they even being discussed??

    Because they are nothing but "Wouldn't It Be Nice For Democrats" laws...

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of mean-spiritedness...

    DNC Chair: Republicans Are Saying ‘Yeah, Let’s Kick Women … Out Of This Country’ [VIDEO]
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/11/dnc-chair-republicans-are-saying-yeah-lets-kick-women-out-of-this-country-video/

    This is great for the Hysterical side of the Party..

    But does BS like this really accomplish anything beyond more divisions and more polarization??

    NOTE: I tried to find a comparable one from the GOP side of things.. Maybe you can find one to put in.. :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    @Michale [73]

    Actually, just so you know, after your and my initial back-and-forth, I did attempt to reply to several of your later posts in FTP #364. Unfortunately after an hour or so (yes, I spent way too much time on an internet site), I submitted two posts that ended up never displaying. Don't know why, so I guess I'm left with "the dog ate my homework". Sorry, no way you could have known that, but after losing that much time on a post, I gave up.

    In my comment #10 to the "Program Note" CW posting (http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/10/01/program-note-52/), I did offer a concrete solution that I don't think ended up being much different that a flavor of what I think you were suggesting.

    So, when you suggest that no plan offered would work are just "wouldn't it be nice" laws, what would be the criteria for such an evaluation that either side could objectively consider as a place to start? Now, if you say, well, if it reduces deaths, then I'll say, fine, let's try the proposal and see if empirically it does so.

    Just sayin', I thought your challenge was met head on (though thanks for acknowledging what you did!). You might not agree it was reasonable or would reduce gun violence deaths -- fair enough -- but I thought it was reasonable and would likely reduce mass murder gun violence deaths.

    The rest of this comment post has to do with civility: 

    @altohon [#67]

    For the record, Michale was right to call you out in his #70. Frankly, I thought he was reasonably restrained when he did so. Yours was a personal attack (and not your first one) and didn't contribute usefully to the discussion. If you want to call out someone for inappropriate or misrepresentative arguments, I'm right there with you. When you start behaving uncivilly yourself, you lost me regardless of the substance of your argument. Yellow card.

    @Michale [71]
    Politics is a contact sport...

    Yes, and even contact sports have rules for being out-of-bounds and have an ethic of sportsmanship. Indeed, while we're on the subject, you don't (or aren't supposed to) see refs penalize an offending team by letting the other do it back.

    We're not playing kill-the-carrier, especially when we're all just a bunch of armchair quarterbacks on some website when you get right down to it. In fact, it's when we disagree most passionately, that following a code of civility are most needed.

    @Elizabeth Miller [@69, @72].

    Right there with you, sister. @Michale has always treated me with respect on this site and I enjoy sparing with him. But when @altohone or @michale are just lobbing rhetorical flash bombs (whether in general or at each other), this site loses something. When any of us vilifies the other political side, we've lost something.

    @all
    So, at the risk of being pompous as hell (sorry!), sometimes things should be said out loud:
    I won't promise that my posts will always make sense, but I promise I'll try. I won't promise the facts I represent will always be found to be accurate, but I promise you that I believe them to be and that I objectively researched them before I posted them (or will say if I haven't).I will promise I will treat you individually and listen and respond to your posts civilly.I promise I won't assume you side with or represent an argument that I haven't seen you write or defend.I promise I won't assume you're partisan and only want to win an argument just to say you won, but rather will assume you intend a good-faith effort to discuss and debate in hopes of finding common-ground or to educate yourselves or others.I promise not to assume that if you don't reply right way, that it means you somehow lost the argument; I'll assume you got busy with real life or wanted to think on the topic more before responding.I promise that even when you write passionately that if I respond, I'll try to find the best part of your argument and genuinely respond to that (i.e., the only one-of-us-gets-to-be-insane-at-a-time rule).I promise to tell you if you changed my mind or if you convince me a fact I represented earlier is found to be wrong and I promise to trust that you'll do the same.

    In short, pull a yellow card on me if you ever see me go out of bounds or behave with poor sportsmanship.
    Now, I'd like to get back to trying to solve the world's problems from my desk chair via obscure comments using a pseudonym on a wonky political internet blog that I doubt any actual political leader with actual power actually reads.

    - Richard

  78. [78] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    @Michale [#75]

    I don't think @Elizabeth Miller was claiming that only Republicans were mean-spirited, I think they she was characterizing how she thought comments on this site were. If we start looking at comments by politicians, especially chairs of national party organizations, we're all gonna get dirty.

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very well said, Richard, on all counts! :)

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, just so you know, after your and my initial back-and-forth, I did attempt to reply to several of your later posts in FTP #364. Unfortunately after an hour or so (yes, I spent way too much time on an internet site), I submitted two posts that ended up never displaying. Don't know why, so I guess I'm left with "the dog ate my homework". Sorry, no way you could have known that, but after losing that much time on a post, I gave up.

    Fair enough...

    In my comment #10 to the "Program Note" CW posting (http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/10/01/program-note-52/), I did offer a concrete solution that I don't think ended up being much different that a flavor of what I think you were suggesting.

    So, when you suggest that no plan offered would work are just "wouldn't it be nice" laws, what would be the criteria for such an evaluation that either side could objectively consider as a place to start? Now, if you say, well, if it reduces deaths, then I'll say, fine, let's try the proposal and see if empirically it does so.

    We first must agree on which problem we are trying to address.. I ran into this on a DISCUS discussion...

    The problem with trying to decide the problem is that the problem always morphs from the Press Conference problem to a different problem that is, allegedly, an easier problem to solve... :D

    Did ya get that??

    What I mean by that is that the Press Conference problem was crowd-based mass shootings.. That's what prompted this latest round of soul-searching. That's what ALWAYS prompts these rounds of soul-searching...

    But that's not the problem the Left wants to address with their ideas for laws.. And the reason being is because the Left CAN'T address the Press Conference problem.. So they invariably try to change the subject to a problem the Left THINKS it can address...

    So, we have to decide whether we want to address the crowd-based mass shooting problem or the general gun violence problem..

    Word of warning though. NOTHING the Left has in their arsenal will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

    The only thing that will help in THOSE kinds of instances are the ideas coming from the Right..

    As far as general gun violence, we need to start from a common point.

    There will never ever, ever NEVER EVER be a gun ban here in the United States..

    If we can agree on that, then we can have a fruitful discussion..

    Yes, and even contact sports have rules for being out-of-bounds and have an ethic of sportsmanship. Indeed, while we're on the subject, you don't (or aren't supposed to) see refs penalize an offending team by letting the other do it back.

    While I get your point, I have known sports officials (and court judges) who will penalize one side and then look for an opportunity
    to do the same to the other side just to be "fair"...

    Not exactly what you are referring to but I thought I would throw it out there... :D

    But my point is bringing up the issue is that the argument for "mean spiritedness" loses a lot of it's potency if it's not equally applied. It's the same as when many here rail against big money in elections. If you don't rail against the Partys equally, it comes across as nothing more than partisan attacks when, in reality, it could be so much more...

    We're not playing kill-the-carrier, especially when we're all just a bunch of armchair quarterbacks on some website when you get right down to it. In fact, it's when we disagree most passionately, that following a code of civility are most needed.

    Agreed...

    Now, I'd like to get back to trying to solve the world's problems from my desk chair via obscure comments using a pseudonym on a wonky political internet blog that I doubt any actual political leader with actual power actually reads.

    Here, here.. Well said.. :D

    If you want to call out someone for inappropriate or misrepresentative arguments, I'm right there with you. When you start behaving uncivilly yourself, you lost me regardless of the substance of your argument. Yellow card.

    It's easier to turn the other cheek knowing comments like this are coming.. Thank you...

    I don't think @Elizabeth Miller was claiming that only Republicans were mean-spirited, I think they she was characterizing how she thought comments on this site were. If we start looking at comments by politicians, especially chairs of national party organizations, we're all gonna get dirty.

    Troo... Expecting civility from politicians is a fool's errand

    File it under the "Wouldn't It Be Nice" category.. :D

    But I think Liz's comments were prompted by by vehemence against Obama for blatantly politicizing (and STATING he was politicizing) the Roseburg shootings. I realize that Obama felt he was being "cutsey" but I bet if every Weigantian was honest with themselves, they would admit that it was a bonehead thing to say...

    I admit that my animosity towards Obama for that was a bit overboard.. It's one of those times where I make a post at night and wake up in the morning regretting the tone...

    Irregardless of that, I do feel that everyone should condemn such action...

    And irregardless of all THAT, I will do better to be better...

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But I think Liz's comments were prompted by by vehemence against Obama for blatantly politicizing (and STATING he was politicizing) the Roseburg shootings.

    No, Richard was right. I was really referring, at that moment, to the comments at this site, in general, and yours and Al's, in particular. I'm just sick and tired of all of it, coming in the form of comments here or with the political process in the US in general. It doesn't solve anything and doesn't come close to understanding
    what the real problems and issues of the day are or to what we all really think would be the best way forward on any of them.

    And irregardless of all THAT, I will do better to be better...

    I really believe that this site is one of the best, if not THE best, blogs on the internets for the possibilities it provides for a real good discussion about any number of issues. I've been a regular participant in only a couple or three such blogs and this one has always been my favourite - for the people it attracts and for the fun way we have been known to talk about things, from time to time.

    If we all stick to the issues and what we believe to be the best way to go about solving them - agreeing and disagreeing with each other and with our political leaders - and trying to persuade using rational arguments without the mean-spiritedness and name calling and pitting D's against R's and I's etc. then I think this would really be a unique discussion/debate site, worthy of it's exceptional host.

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    As for President Obama's politicizing of gun violence in the US ...

    It's probably high time that we had a good discussion here about the gun culture in the US and what it has brought about. Obama's response to the latest massacre - or the third or fourth or fifth latest - in Roseburg was, in my view, completely understandable and even overdue.

    Unfortunately, guns are a political issue in the US and I don't see how you talk about guns or gun violence or the second amendment or common sense gun control legislation etc. without politicizing it. Obama didn't politicize gun violence - it's always been politicized. If Americans wish to come to terms with this issue, then y'all are just going to have to admit it's a political issue and it needs to be dealt with politically.

    There is no need, whatsoever, for you to demonize President Obama over this. He has had to be consoler-in-chief to too many families since he took office and the next president, Republican or Democrat, will have to face families who have been victimized by gun violence like in Roseburg as well.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's probably high time that we had a good discussion here about the gun culture in the US and what it has brought about. Obama's response to the latest massacre - or the third or fourth or fifth latest - in Roseburg was, in my view, completely understandable and even overdue.

    But when you look at "politicizing" in the context of Democrats whining and crying about alleged "politicizing" of the Benghazi hearings, you can understand the reaction, I am sure...

    Unfortunately, guns are a political issue in the US and I don't see how you talk about guns or gun violence or the second amendment or common sense gun control legislation etc. without politicizing it. Obama didn't politicize gun violence - it's always been politicized. If Americans wish to come to terms with this issue, then y'all are just going to have to admit it's a political issue and it needs to be dealt with politically.

    I completely agree..

    If you take away the politics of the gun issue, there is NO issue..

    I have said that many many times..

    There is no need, whatsoever, for you to demonize President Obama over this.

    I disagree... If Obama were open to REAL solutions to crowd-based mass shootings, then you would have a point.

    But he's not.. He is solely interested in scoring political points for the Democrat Party.. This is blatantly obvious because he is demonizing the Right over the issue...

    If Obama can demonize the right, then I can surely demonize Obama...

    Right???

    But it's unlikely that a Republican POTUS would politicize the issue...

    Because Republicans have REAL solutions to the particular problem that Obama brought up..

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, just put the shoe on the other foot...

    Imagine if Bush had gone to the potium in a presser and said, "We must politicize the war against terrorists"...

    The Left would have lost their frakin' minds...

    Am I wrong???

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    If we all stick to the issues and what we believe to be the best way to go about solving them - agreeing and disagreeing with each other and with our political leaders - and trying to persuade using rational arguments without the mean-spiritedness and name calling and pitting D's against R's and I's etc. then I think this would really be a unique discussion/debate site, worthy of it's exceptional host.

    I completely agree...

    On the flip side, however, the vehemence that permeates national politics cannot help but affect the participants here...

    This because completely obvious when national Democrats starting referring to Republicans as "terrorists" and "hostage takers" and such memes permeated the streets and alleys of Weigantia..

    For better or for worse, Weigantia is an offshoot of the national dialogue..

    Sure we can be better about it.. We can argue passionately about practically any subject and still sit down to a beer afterwards...

    It's called basic human respect.. And yea, there are outliers that put such sentiments to the test.. But I honestly feel that such outliers make us stronger as a community..

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "No, it's not my opinion that Hillary viciously attacked Bill's mistresses..

    It's documented fact..."

    That's cute Michale, but not what I was referring to. I was saying that it was only your opinion that that was Hillary's first political pass from the American people as an elected official. She was neither an elected official in her own right at the time, or a politician dealing with something the she herself instigated, like John Kennedy having his mistress visit him at the White House while he was President. She was it seems to me, collateral damage dealing with the fallout from here husband's actions, not her own. Now, if the American people do decide to support her for President, then you could make a case for the whole State Dept. e-mail server controversy being here first political pass from the public, and there I would agree with you.

  87. [87] 
    John M wrote:

    Elizabeth wrote:

    "Very well said, Richard, on all counts! :)"

    I must say that I too, think that both Elizabeth and Richard made excellent statements on the subject as well. Very well reasoned and thought out that I can heartily agree with also. Well done guys.

  88. [88] 
    John M wrote:

    Damn, I just have to say sorry for allowing "here' instead of "her" to go through. I guess I need to spell check more carefully. :-)

  89. [89] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "As far as general gun violence, we need to start from a common point.
    There will never ever, ever NEVER EVER be a gun ban here in the United States.."

    I think we can all agree that's a given Michale. The repeal of the Second Amendment is never going to be a real world political possibility. Just like a repeal of the 14th Amendment guarantee of birthright citizenship, despite what Trump might think, is ever going to realistically happen either. In both, cases, regarding gun bans or immigration, it just ISN'T.

    Having said that, even both the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia agree that the Second Amendment DOES allow for gun "regulation" and that regulation is NOT the same as a BAN. I think any discussion can certainly start from that point.

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John,

    I was thinking the very same thing. Sensible gun control does not equal gun ban ... not now, not ever.

    This is a classic red herring and straw man argument that some use in an attempt to escape a real discussion about what can be done to decrease these types of massacres and to deal with the consequences of America's gun culture, especially during an era of a dysfunctional media and political culture. Not an easy challenge to meet, to be sure!

  91. [91] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    Of course, the FACTS say different..
    http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-real-benghazi-investigation-1444345572-lMyQjAxMTA1OTA1OTQwNTk0Wj
    But here in Weigantia...
    "We don't need no stinkin' facts!!!"

    I can just as easily post my own link to an article that comes to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion regarding the Benghazi committee:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/us/politics/clinton-emails-became-the-new-focus-of-benghazi-inquiry.html

    The article makes several interesting points, including; the Benghazi investigation has now gone on longer than the Watergate investigation, and the focus of the committee’s work has shifted from the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack to issue of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.

    So much for "FACTS" Michale.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I was thinking the very same thing. Sensible gun control does not equal gun ban ... not now, not ever.

    And yet, whenever the Left starts talking guns, the UK and Australia are inevitably mentioned..

    And what is unique to the UK and Australia??

    Gun bans...

    So, while it's easy to say that ya'all aren't talking about banning guns, the facts clearly show that, for the Left, the implication is there, the desire is there...

    JM,

    Having said that, even both the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia agree that the Second Amendment DOES allow for gun "regulation" and that regulation is NOT the same as a BAN. I think any discussion can certainly start from that point.

    And we DO have gun regulation..

    And the facts clearly show that gun regulation in and of itself DOES NOT WORK to curtail gun violence..

    But, before I offer the facts that PROVE this, let's make sure we're on the same page.

    The issue before us is crowd-based mass shootings. Before we move OFF this issue into general gun violence, can we agree that the Left does not have ANY plan, ANY law or ANY idea that will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

    Can we agree on that and move on??

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    She was neither an elected official in her own right at the time,

    I think it's safe to say Hillary was more politically active than any First Lady up to that point..

    While she was not an elected politician, it's pretty clear that she had considerable political power..

    or a politician dealing with something the she herself instigated, like John Kennedy having his mistress visit him at the White House while he was President.

    Ahhh, but we're not talking about Bills "bimbo eruptions" (if anyone is offended by the term, blame Hillary)..

    We're talking about the brutal and vicious attacks on Bill's mistresses..

    Those WERE instigated by Hillary...

    And, in the here and now, seeing Hillary come out with videos supporting women who have been the victims of sexual assaults!???

    I am amazed that Hillary didn't turn to fire from the blatant and jaw-dropping hypocrisy...

    Hillary has been getting a pass from the Left for over 25 years...

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the by, Liz and any other Canadians...

    Happy Thanksgiving... :D

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regarding the defunct JCPOA...

    Obama will be the only person sticking to Iran deal
    http://nypost.com/2015/10/11/obama-will-be-the-only-person-sticking-to-iran-deal/

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this outcome..

    Who could have predicted that Iran wouldn't have to do a thing and would reap the benefits of $400 million a month??

    Who could have predicted that Iran would not have to stop ONE centrifuge or get rid of ONE ounce of nuclear material to get all sorts of trade contracts worth BILLIONS to Iran???

    Who could have predicted that Iran would use there new wealth to be even MORE violent and MORE de-stabilizing in the region??

    Who could have predicted that??

    Oh... wait....

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the facts clearly show that gun regulation in and of itself DOES NOT WORK to curtail gun violence..

    Remember the "assault weapon" ban?? Even though there is NO SUCH THING as an "assault weapon", they were banned in 1994 based on all sorts of promises how it would end or put a severe dent in gun violence...

    The results??

    A dismal dismal failure...

    That illustrates the EXACT problem with Democrat's gun regulations... They don't do ANY good because the problem is NOT guns in and of themselves...

    I can prove that beyond ANY doubt to anyone who has a semblance of an open mind..

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    Regarding the Republican House Benghazi committee...

    Of course, the FACTS say different..
    http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-real-benghazi-investigation-1444345572-lMyQjAxMTA1OTA1OTQwNTk0Wj
    But here in Weigantia...
    "We don't need no stinkin' facts!!!"

    You know, I can cite another article that supports an entirely different and completely opposite conclusion. An excerpt from that article in the NY Times states:

    "Now, 17 months later — longer than the Watergate investigation lasted — interviews with current and former committee staff members as well as internal committee documents reviewed by The New York Times show the extent to which the focus of the committee’s work has shifted from the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack to the politically charged issue of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state."

    When I tried to include the link for this article, my entire post disappeared. You might want to look into that C.W.

    By the way, so much for your supposed "FACTS" Michale.

  98. [98] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    Regarding the Republican House Benghazi committee...

    Of course, the FACTS say different..
    "We don't need no stinkin' facts!!!"

    You know, I can cite another article that supports an entirely different and completely opposite conclusion. An excerpt from that article in the NY Times states:

    "Now, 17 months later — longer than the Watergate investigation lasted — interviews with current and former committee staff members as well as internal committee documents reviewed by The New York Times show the extent to which the focus of the committee’s work has shifted from the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack to the politically charged issue of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state."

    When I tried to include the link for this article, my entire post disappeared. You might want to look into that C.W.

    By the way, so much for your supposed "FACTS" Michale.

  99. [99] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    ""Wouldn't it be nice if we could ban a historical battle flag"
    -Democrats"

    That's a great way to dismiss and trivialize the legitimate concerns of a large block of minority Americans concerning what is a very painful wound for them. Especially when you very well know that those flags were only raised in the first place by some southern state governments in protest to and to show their utter disdain for, the ending of official government sanctioned segregation.

  100. [100] 
    John M wrote:

    Also, for some reason my repeated attempts to post something regarding the Benghazi House committee keep getting lost. I wanted to cite a NY Times article and provide a link that comes to a completely opposite conclusion from the one Michale cited.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a great way to dismiss and trivialize the legitimate concerns of a large block of minority Americans concerning what is a very painful wound for them.

    Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject under discussion..

    Which is EXACTLY why it SHOULD be dismissed and trivialized in the context of the subject at hand..

    It's as if Republicans used a crowd-based mass shooting to get rid of some aspect of TrainWreckCare they didn't like??

    Would ya'all be saying, "W.T.F.!!??"

    Especially when you very well know that those flags were only raised in the first place by some southern state governments in protest to and to show their utter disdain for, the ending of official government sanctioned segregation.

    I know nothing of the sort..

    But WHAT does that have to do with the subject of crowd-based mass shootings??

    Not a damn thing..

    *THAT* is my point...

    Also, for some reason my repeated attempts to post something regarding the Benghazi House committee keep getting lost. I wanted to cite a NY Times article and provide a link that comes to a completely opposite conclusion from the one Michale cited.

    Try using TinyURL instead of the link..

    Barring that, break up up the comment by paragraph..

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wanted to cite a NY Times article and provide a link that comes to a completely opposite conclusion from the one Michale cited.

    I am sure you can find some Left Wing justification for the claim..

    But here are some facts that are completely unarguable.

    1. McCarthy said absolutely NOTHING about politicizing the Benghazi hearings.

    2. Democrats have gone on witch hunts as well.

    3. Democrats whining about GOP politicizing and then turn right around and blatantly STATE they will politicize an issue is the ultimate in hypocrisy...

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I am sure you can find some Left Wing justification for the claim..

    You always seem to find a right wing justification for your claims. Any difference?

    And what about your hypocrisy? Your first post on this board about the mass shooting (and most mass shootings in the past) was to further your political agenda. Right after criticizing the left for proposing gun control you post:

    Get rid of Gun Free Zones...

    Why is it you bring this up only after mass shootings?

    The other interesting thing is neither you nor your WSJ opinion piece mentioned that this is what? the seventh or eighth investigation in to Benghazi? Lets face it if the left was witch hunting to the point they had to start new investigations every time they did not get the answers they wanted you would be screaming to high heavens about it, but when a -R- is before their name...

    Also, if the first investigation had found the desired dirt on Hillary would there have been multiple more investigations?

    The first investigation and maybe the second if there was extenuating circumstances was completely justified regardless of the political parties involved, each one after that is purely political. Not to mention the email server thing is becoming such a blatant fishing expedition...

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    You always seem to find a right wing justification for your claims. Any difference?

    None whatsoever..

    Except for the fact that I *ADMIT* it..

    Does anyone here?? Nope.. :D

    Get rid of Gun Free Zones...

    Why is it you bring this up only after mass shootings?

    Because the FACTS clearly show that, next to guns, a Gun Free Zone is the common denominator..

    Unlike you Lefties who just whine and cry about useless regulations and bans, *MY* idea would actually prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

    Has nothing to do with a partisan agenda and EVERYTHING to do with BTDT facts..

    The other interesting thing is neither you nor your WSJ opinion piece mentioned that this is what? the seventh or eighth investigation in to Benghazi?

    Actually, it's the 2nd, by why let facts stand in your way...

    Irregardless of THAT, how many Iraq War or Tortured Terrorists investigations were there??

    Glass houses.. Stones...

    Not to mention the email server thing is becoming such a blatant fishing expedition...

    Of course you would say that..

    NO SecState in the HISTORY of the country has ever so blatantly exposed this country to danger.. A country that has no diplomatic secrets is a country that won't last the day...

    But to the Hysterical Left, it's nothing but a fishing expedition...

    But College Hazing at an Iraqi prison??

    Now THAT'S something REALLY serious!!! :^/

    The partisanship is as blatant as it is nauseating..

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not to mention the email server thing is becoming such a blatant fishing expedition...

    If it's nothing but a fishing expedition, why does Hillary CONSTANTLY lie about it and then make up new stories when the lies are proven???

    Doesn't sound like a fishing expedition to any normal American w/ more than 2 brain cells to rub together..

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unlike you Lefties who just whine and cry about useless regulations and bans, *MY* idea would actually prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

    Please change that to read:

    Unlike THE Lefties who just whine and cry about useless regulations and bans, *MY* idea would actually prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

    I'm trying... :D

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lets face it if the left was witch hunting to the point they had to start new investigations every time they did not get the answers they wanted you would be screaming to high heavens about it,

    You mean like all the 9/11 investigations, the Iraq War investigations, the Terrorists/CIA/Black Sites investigations??

    Are those the kinds of witch hunts you are referring to??

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Because the FACTS clearly show that, next to guns, a Gun Free Zone is the common denominator..

    And yet no study of mass shooters has found that common denominator was thought about by the shooters.

    Unlike you Lefties who just whine and cry about useless regulations and bans,

    Back that up. When did I say anything like that.

    *MY* idea would actually prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

    At the expense of more gun related deaths than the preventing of mass shootings would save...

    Yup, political agenda...

    Actually, it's the 2nd, by why let facts stand in your way...

    Yawn. There were four previous investigations in the house alone. But I see you don't let facts get in your way...

    Glass houses.. Stones...

    So it's OK in some situations when your political agenda is furthered but it's hypocrisy when others do it... Hmm, do you a guide of when it's OK and when it is not?

  109. [109] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Are those the kinds of witch hunts you are referring to??

    Yes, exactly. Why is it that you, an alleged political agnostic, scream to high heaven when a D does it but wholeheartedly jump on the bandwagon when an R does it? Seems like your political agnosticism is more alleged than real...

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet no study of mass shooters has found that common denominator was thought about by the shooters.

    Several mass shooters DID indicate that they choose Gun Free Zones specifically..

    Regardless, it's a documented fact that, since 1950, ALL but one, possibly two mass shootings were in Gun Free Zones..

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

    At the expense of more gun related deaths than the preventing of mass shootings would save...

    There is empirical evidence to support my position..

    There is none to support your claim of more gun related deaths...

    Yawn. There were four previous investigations in the house alone. But I see you don't let facts get in your way...

    Yaawn... Sure there was :D

    Hmm, do you a guide of when it's OK and when it is not?

    No.. No Guide... Just common sense and political agnosticity...

    For example.. If a Party complains and whines and bitches and moans about politicizing an issue where Americans are killed.....

    It's PROBABLY not a good idea for that Party to blatantly STATE that they will be politicizing an issue where MORE Americans are killed...

    When all is said and done, here are the facts.

    You and the entirety of the Left **DO NOT** have ANY idea to combat crowd-based mass shootings..

    The idea of getting rid of Gun Free Zones is a PROVEN idea that has been PROVEN to work in minimizing or eliminating crowd-based mass shootings...

    The Batman mass shooter had a choice of a dozen different theaters showing BATMAN that night. The closest one was only 3 mins away.. The LARGEST theater (more victims) was 7 mins away.. He choose the Cinemark that was over 30 mins away because it was the ONLY ONE that was a GUN FREE ZONE...

    Statistically speaking, in a gun free zone with no armed civilians, the average death count is 9... In a crowd-based shooting that allows conceal carry, the average death count is 3....

    You do the math...

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

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, exactly. Why is it that you, an alleged political agnostic, scream to high heaven when a D does it but wholeheartedly jump on the bandwagon when an R does it?

    OK, so we are in agreement..

    The Democrat Party has absolutely NO ROOM to complain about GOP Witch Hunts...

    As to me not complaining??

    That's because it's RIDICULOUS to hold hearings after hearings about nothing more than college hazing in a foreign prison..

    But it's serious as shit serious when our SecState creates her own insecure bathroom closet MailServ and passes highly classified intel THRU that insecure bathroom closet MailServ...

    Nothing partisan about it..

    Just common sense...

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Several mass shooters DID indicate that they choose Gun Free Zones specifically..

    [citation required]

    Yaawn... Sure there was :D

    Armed Services Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, Intelligence Committee, and Oversight and Government Reform Committee all investigated Benghazi...

    The Batman mass shooter had a choice of a dozen different theaters showing BATMAN that night. The closest one was only 3 mins away.. The LARGEST theater (more victims) was 7 mins away.. He choose the Cinemark that was over 30 mins away because it was the ONLY ONE that was a GUN FREE ZONE...

    Ah yes, this chestnut. The first was an Hispanic theater, the movie was in Spanish. The second did not offer the tactical requirements the shooters notes specified, that is all the exits were in high traffic areas of a mall. He was caught and thoroughly investigated for the court case. There is no indication in his writings or words that a gun free zone had anything to do with his choice.

    Statistically speaking, in a gun free zone with no armed civilians, the average death count is 9... In a crowd-based shooting that allows conceal carry, the average death count is 3....

    You do the math...

    Lies, dam lies and statistics. With a sample size of "one, possibly two" (which were you using, by the way?) I don't find your math convincing...

  113. [113] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    That's because it's RIDICULOUS to hold hearings after hearings about nothing more than college hazing in a foreign prison..

    So it does come down to purely political agenda. Got it.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it's serious as shit serious when our SecState creates her own insecure bathroom closet MailServ and passes highly classified intel THRU that insecure bathroom closet MailServ...

    And anyone who DOESN'T believe that such an action is serious as shit serious is either a few fries short of a happy meal or is serving a partisan agenda...

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    So it does come down to purely political agenda. Got it.

    Yes..

    The Democrats Witch Hunt over the Abu Ghraib all comes down to a purely political agenda..

    Exactly..

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The other interesting thing is neither you nor your WSJ opinion piece mentioned that this is what? the seventh or eighth investigation in to Benghazi?

    Actually, it's the 2nd, by why let facts stand in your way..."

    Actually Michale, you are WRONG. This is now the EIGHTH investigation into Benghazi.

    Here is the list for your edification:

    1.) Senate Intelligence Committee

    Report released: January 15, 2014

    2.) House Republicans’ Interim Report

    Report released: April 23, 2013

    3.) Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

    Report released: Dec. 31, 2012

    4.) House Armed Services Committee

    Report released: Feb. 10, 2014

    5.) House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    Report released: Sept. 16, 2013

    (This was the one chaired by Darrell Issa.)

    6.) House Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Report released: Feb. 7, 2014

    7.) House Intelligence Committee

    Report released: July 31, 2014

    ALL of them have found NO evidence of either criminality OR Malfeasance on the part of Hillary Clinton regarding the incident.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, different committees performed their own investigation..

    But it was ALL the SAME investigation...

    ALL of them have found NO evidence of either criminality OR Malfeasance on the part of Hillary Clinton regarding the incident.

    Yea.. IN BENGHAZI...

    But like with all crooks, A leads to B and B leads to C....

    I refer you to comment #110

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    But it was ALL the SAME investigation...

    The Senate and House investigations were the same, eh?

    But like with all crooks, A leads to B and B leads to C....

    And when you can't find anything, make it up.

    I refer you to comment #110

    Exactly.

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton’s “there’s no evidence of that” line of defense over her email mess continues to crumble in the face of .?.?. new evidence.
    For all her talk of how using a private email account for her work running the State Department was just fine, it’s now plain she left top-secret information vulnerable to hackers.
    More evidence is likely to come out. The FBI’s probe has now expanded to include another private server she used, a backup service with Connecticut-based Datto Inc.

    http://nypost.com/2015/10/11/fresh-evidence-keeps-sinking-hillary-clintons-e-mail-defense/

    Yea... "NO evidence of either criminality OR malfeasance on the part of Hillary Clinton"

    Riiiight..

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    But like with all crooks, A leads to B and B leads to C....

    And when you can't find anything, make it up.

    So, you don't think that a US SecState using an insecure private bathroom closet homebrew email server EXCLUSIVELY is any big deal?

    SERIOUSLY!!???

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, this is exactly where the disconnect is..

    If it had been a GOP'er who had an insecure private bathroom closet homebrew email server and used that insecure private bathroom closet homebrew email server EXCLUSIVELY for SecState duties???

    Ya'all would have gone absolutely APE SHEET and condemned that GOP'er to hell and back...

    The only difference between that scenario and now is that we would all be on the same exact page...

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    CW,

    Please impose the Facebook Civility and Decorum Data Mining Project on CW.com ASAP before Richard and Liz are compelled to vacate.

  123. [123] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Ya'all would have gone absolutely APE SHEET and condemned that GOP'er to hell and back...

    And you would not have even brought it up...

    If there is disconnect, you suffer from it equally.

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you would not have even brought it up...

    Yea, you're probably right... Because I wouldn't have to.. Ya'all would be all over it like stink on rice... Or white on shit.. One of those..

    But it is undeniable that, once ya'all DID bring it up, I would be completely in agreement with ya'all....

    Hence the disconnect... :D

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please impose the Facebook Civility and Decorum Data Mining Project on CW.com ASAP before Richard and Liz are compelled to vacate.

    While I can't speak to RD, I have known Liz for almost a decade..

    If she can handle me for that long, NOTHING would faze her! :D

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since the issue of gun control is winding down, let me leave ya'all with the evidence that supports my oft mentioned point..

    The 'Gun Control' Farce
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/13/the_gun_control_farce_128394.html

    The issue of gun control wouldn't BE an issue if we take politics out of the equation and just concentrate on the facts..

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I thought ya might like that? :D

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Look at John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Chris Christie, etc. at least as far as being elected to their first term in office. Americans are very forgiving the first time.

    21 most consequential Clinton scandals, ranked from most important
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/12/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-scandals-ranked-from-/

    You were saying? :D

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for the Debate tonight??

    I'll echo Ron Fournier 's words..

    Radical Debate Advice for Hillary Clinton: Tell the Truth
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/89140/radical-debate-advice-hillary-clinton-tell-truth

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, so much for Hillary and telling the truth.. :^/

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.