ChrisWeigant.com

Our Fifth Trillion-Dollar Deficit

[ Posted Tuesday, September 17th, 2019 – 17:03 UTC ]

It was little noticed, but last week the U.S. government admitted that this year's budget deficit has already topped the trillion-dollar mark. And the fiscal year won't be over for another month. This will be only the fifth time in American history that the annual deficit has been over a trillion dollars, and the other four years were all in the depths of the Great Recession. We're supposed to have a good economy right now, but we're running a deficit as if we're in some pretty bad times. Of course, all of this proves how both Donald Trump and the Republicans have been lying to the American public all along, and how Democrats can continue to make the rather easy argument that the only time the nation gets its fiscal house in anything resembling good order is when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Trump campaigned on solving all our nation's fiscal problems, which was a flat-out con job. Trump, after all, has seen his own businesses go through bankruptcy multiple times, so he is obviously no kind of financial whiz. But he conned his supporters into thinking he was a business genius, and that only he had the answers to America's budget problems. He started out by promising he'd return us all to balanced budgets every year, and then he doubled down by promising he'd actually pay off the outstanding national debt. He later hedged this into a promise to do so "in eight years," under the assumption that he'd have two terms to make good on his ridiculous promise to wipe out our debt (which no president since Andrew Jackson has successfully managed to do).

What has happened instead is that Trump has now hit the mark of doubling our annual deficit, which will also leave it above a trillion dollars each year as far as the eye can see. Fiscal year 2019 is already more than double the deficit of fiscal year 2015, the last time the deficit was under $500 billion. This is due in large part to the gargantuan tax giveaway to the ultrawealthy and corporate America the Republicans in Congress handed out, of course. As always, they swore up and down that "the tax cuts will pay for themselves," and also as always, they were completely and utterly wrong about this rosy prediction. Instead, the deficit doubled, and will continue to increase for the next few years as well. And, to state the blindingly obvious, if we're running trillion-dollar-a-year deficits, the national debt is going to grow by that much each year, making Trump's promise to wipe it out just as much of a con job as his promise to balance the budget.

Strangely, this news got very little attention from anyone -- the media, politicians, or even economists. Perhaps next month, when the actual annual figure is released, it will get a little more attention. Up until just a few months ago, the predictions all stated that we were headed for a trillion-dollar deficit in 2020, not this year. This year we were supposed to come in well below that limit. The obvious conclusion is that things have gotten worse even over the past few months.

The truly bizarre and frightening thing about chalking up the fifth trillion-dollar deficit in American history is that we're doing it when the economy is doing fairly well. We're not in a recession, and the economic indicators are mostly above water. They have been all year. Normally, the government runs a much bigger deficit during a downturn, to pump money into the economy. We're doing it while there is no downturn, and we're looking at this level of deficit for the foreseeable future. What all of this means is that when the inevitable recession comes, we'll be in a much worse place to come up with some stimulus money, because doing so might require running our first two-trillion-dollar deficit. To put this another way, when we need the money most, it won't be there because we've already spent it during the good times.

On top of all this, the Federal Reserve seems to be getting cowed by Trump's naked political pressure into cutting interest rates now. They were never able to get interest rates back up to what is considered a normal range, after the long and slow recovery from the Great Recession. Again, in good times, the interest rates are supposed to rise a bit, which allows them to be cut (as stimulus) during bad economic times. The rates never got high enough to give us this solid buffer, and now they're being cut in anticipation of the Trump Recession (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump Trade War). When the bad times truly do hit, the Fed is going to be almost out of ammo. They're not going to have the leverage to stimulate the economy, unless they start paying people to borrow money (negative interest rates, in other words). This is why a trillion-dollar deficit now should be such a big deal, because there are no bad economic times to justify it. When the bad times do roll around, we're not going to have very many arrows in the quiver to fight back.

Of course, Republicans only care about the deficit and the national debt when there is a Democrat in the White House. Otherwise, as Dick Cheney once said, "deficits don't matter." This is what presents a political opening for Democrats. Democrats historically have shied away from talking about deficits and the debt, because they usually get branded "tax-and-spend Democrats" whenever they propose the slightest tax increase on anybody. But back in the day, some Republicans actually did care about the budget and weren't just making hypocritical political points. Those days are gone. Democrats can now turn it around thusly:

"Republicans call us tax-and-spend Democrats. That's pretty funny, because what they have become is nothing short of borrow-and-spend Republicans. They mortgage our children's future in order to shower wealth on the billionaires at the expense of the middle class. Funny how they never seem to lack the will to run up the deficit to provide tax cuts for the wealthy, but then when any Democrat suggests any spending on Main Street families, then all of sudden the cupboard is bare. Democrats are the ones who have kept closer to the 'pay as you go' philosophy of increasing revenues for federal spending, while Republicans absolutely refuse to use such accounting rules whenever they pass one of their huge tax giveaways to the one percent. No, no, then we're all supposed to believe the fairy story that the tax cuts will magically 'pay for themselves,' even though they never do. So, yeah, I'm proposing increasing spending on education, student loan debt relief, healthcare, infrastructure, fighting climate change, and science in general, because Democrats believe these are investments for the future. But I'm also proposing making the billionaires pay their fair share of taxes to pay for it all. And I think the American people want to see such fiscal discipline rather than the Republican answer to everything, which is to give the billionaires another tax cut and put it on the nation's credit card. Their borrow-and-spend policies have led us into trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Funny how deficits always seem to go down when Democrats are in the White House -- as they did under Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, the last president to completely eliminate the deficit. If you want more reckless spending in the form of yet another tax cut for corporate America -- and absolutely nothing for hardworking Americans -- vote for them. If you want someone who will make the wealthy pay their fair share so we can afford to move our country forward, vote for us. It really is that simple."

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

120 Comments on “Our Fifth Trillion-Dollar Deficit”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    This will sail right over the heads of Weigantians, but it's strange and revealing of how the Dem attitude and mindset works, is illustrated by their language and terminology.

    To designate cutting a high-earner's ("rich guy's") tax as a case of "giving him money" is illustrative of the Democratic mindset that everything people earn belongs to the government.

    According to that reasoning, if the government decides NOT to tax poor people, why don't we in the name of consistency, describe that as "putting them on welfare"???

  2. [2] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Just one more word on economic illiteracy.

    "Negative interest" is not normally defined as the gov't "paying people to borrow money".

    Negative interest normally implies a situation where the gov't charges the bond buyer (lender) to accept his loan, meaning the gov't agrees to redeem the bond (repay the loan) at less than face value.

    That's kinda splitting hairs, but that's how it theoretically at least, would work, should such ever come to pass.

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The tax cuts are paying for themselves for both Republicans and Democrats.

    Some of it is being converted into big money campaign contributions for 2020.

    And if you believe their fairy tale and vote for candidates that take any of it that will do asolutely nothing for hard working Americans then you are voting for more of the same whether it is a Republican or a Democrat.

    It really is that simple.

    Your fairy tale is just not true. You are either one of the conned or one of the con men.

    Get Real.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    1

    To designate cutting a high-earner's ("rich guy's") tax as a case of "giving him money" is illustrative of the Democratic mindset that everything people earn belongs to the government.

    Bullshit. Nobody believes that everything people earn belongs to the government... regardless of whether they're wealthy, middle class, or lower income. Nobody.

    According to that reasoning, if the government decides NOT to tax poor people, why don't we in the name of consistency, describe that as "putting them on welfare"???

    It's your fantasy, Stucki; you are therefore free to make up whatever bullshit you'd like... as per your normal.

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    3

    It really is that simple.

    I can make it even more simple. If no one votes unless they vote for a candidate who meets Don Harris's fairy tale purity test, then there will be no democracy at all because no one will vote.

    Simple: You can go eff yourself while we go vote.

  6. [6] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    OK, if you, Chris, and your fellow Democratics really DON'T believe that, then why do characterize letting him keep what he himself earned as "giving him money"?

    I don't really expect an answer, just more insults, and that's OK, because I'm fully cognizant of your personal problems/handicaps.

    Just hang in there, best you can. You know everything that's driving you over the edge will be OK "when the Mueller report comes out", right?

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    From the previous commentary..

    Russ,

    The AR-15 and AK-47 are not slang terms that cover a broad range of firearms. They are very specific names for specific firearms. Congress could ban them if they chose to, as Scalia pointed out.

    Complete and utter bullshit..

    But, OK.. I'll play Russ.

    What makes AR-15s and AK-47s so "specific"..

    I have asked you uncountable times what is your parameters for banning guns.

    You NEVER answer.. Because you CAN'T.. Because you KNOW that there will never be another gun ban..

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    And again, from yesterday's commentary..

    JL,

    instead of banning the guns, wouldn't it make more sense to just heavily tax the ammunition?

    OK, instead of banning free speech, why don't we heavily tax the tools that people use to facilitate free speech...

    What part of THE 2ND AMENDMENT WON'T ALLOW OVERLY BURDENSOME REGULATIONS SOLELY DESIGNED TO PREVENT PEOPLE FORM EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT is unclear to you??

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    The Atlantic published this letter from one AR-15 owning veteran:

    You lost me at THE ATLANTIC...

    A wholly Left Wing rag that has absolutely no basis in facts or reality..

    I'll be around all day when yer ready to give me your parameters for the AR-15 or AK-47 ban..

    AR-15 and AK-47 are generic terms to designate any semi-automatic rifle..

    Like kleenex for tissue or coke for cola soda..

    But, I'll be yer huckleberry..

    You give me your parameters for a gun ban and I'll totally decimate you with FACTS.. :D

    In other words, just another day in Weigantia.. :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was little noticed, but last week the U.S. government admitted that this year's budget deficit has already topped the trillion-dollar mark. And the fiscal year won't be over for another month.

    So???

    You Democrats didn't care when Odumbo was ballon'ing the deficit up to unheard of heights when he was in office.

    Ya'all lost all moral authority to complain about it..

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    This will sail right over the heads of Weigantians, but it's strange and revealing of how the Dem attitude and mindset works, is illustrated by their language and terminology.

    To designate cutting a high-earner's ("rich guy's") tax as a case of "giving him money" is illustrative of the Democratic mindset that everything people earn belongs to the government.

    According to that reasoning, if the government decides NOT to tax poor people, why don't we in the name of consistency, describe that as "putting them on welfare"???

    Why, indeed... :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting..

    In August, 53 people died in "mass shootings"...

    Over 40,000 died from obesity..

    If Democrats applied their peculiar brand of "logic" to THAT, they would ban ALL spoons, forks and knifes..

    THAT is the Dumbocrat mentality...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Major Democratic donor Ed Buck arrested, charged with running drug den

    LOS ANGELES-- Ed Buck, the California Democratic megadonor, was arrested Tuesday and charged with operating a drug house after a third man reportedly suffered an overdose inside his West Hollywood home last week and survived.

    Detectives investigate second death in two years at Democratic fundraiser Ed Buck's California apartmentVideo

    Buck has faced public scrutiny after two black men died from overdoses 18 months apart inside his home. He was not charged in those cases.

    Buck was charged with three counts of battery and is accused of injecting the alleged third victim with methamphetamine on Sept. 11, The Los Angeles Times reported.
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/major-democratic-donor-ed-buck-arrested-charged-with-running-drug-den

    Democrats.. :eyeroll:

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fmr DNC Chair Donna Brazile: 'I get in trouble' when I refuse to say that Trump is a racist
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/donna-brazile-trump-racist-david-webb

    Yep.. You don't toe the Democrat bullshit line, they bring out the torches and pitchforks..

    :eyeroll:

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    The AR-15 and AK-47 are not slang terms that cover a broad range of firearms. They are very specific names for specific firearms. Congress could ban them if they chose to, as Scalia pointed out.

    Complete and utter bullshit..

    But, OK.. I'll play Russ.

    What makes AR-15s and AK-47s so "specific".

    Allow me to help ya out Russ..

    https://i.imgur.com/ILiG4x1.png

    Same nomenclature

    Same muzzle velocity...

    Same firepower...

    Same ammunition...

    Same rate of fire...

    Same capacity...

    The top one is a generic AR-15..

    The bottom one is a Ruger Mini-14 hunting rifle..

    And YOU want to ban the TOP one **SOLELY** because it "looks" scary... :eyeroll:

    And what's even more damning is that you don't see a problem with that at all..

    You think it's PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to ban things SOLELY based on what they look like..

  16. [16] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    6

    OK, if you, Chris, and your fellow Democratics really DON'T believe that, then why do characterize letting him keep what he himself earned as "giving him money"?

    First off, I'm not a Democrat. Second, there is nowhere in the article where Chris uses the term "giving him money." That's your invented bullshit and not the first time you've spewed it.

    I don't really expect an answer, just more insults, and that's OK, because I'm fully cognizant of your personal problems/handicaps.

    You make up bullshit and assign it to posters you know nothing about. You're "fully cognizant" of nothing, but your fantasies are alive and well.

    Just hang in there, best you can. You know everything that's driving you over the edge will be OK "when the Mueller report comes out", right?

    I'm fine, Stucki, but enjoy your sick fantasies. You know absolutely nothing. :)

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, as far as your claim that AR-15s and AK-47s are "very specific names for very specific firearms"...

    You just HAVE to know how full of shit you are on that claim..

    And I can easily prove it..

    Simply do a GOOGLE IMAGES search for "AR-15" and "AK-47".. You will see there is a PLETHORA of different rifles that all bear the designation AR-15 and AK-47...

    There is simply NO WAY a ban of all those different will pass Constitutional muster..

    NO.... WAY.....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I don't think we'll hear from Russ today on the topic of Gun Control and banning guns.. :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Warren gets stumped by Colbert when pressed on middle-class tax hikes to fund Medicare-for-all
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/elizabeth-warren-stephen-colbert-middle-class-tax-hike

    Warren simply will not concede that her Medicare For All plan will stick the middle class with a HUGE tax increase..

    And THAT's who ya'all want for POTUS??

    A (by omission) liar??

    I thought ya'all didn't like liars..

    Oh, that's right.. You don't like liars that have a -R after their names..

    :eyeroll:

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Investigator Dornell Cousette
    Tuscaloosa Police Department, Alabama
    End of Watch: Monday, September 16, 2019

    And remind the few....
    When ill of us they speak....
    That we are all that stands between...
    The monsters and the weak..
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Buttigieg accuses Trump supporters as being racist
    https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/buttigieg-accuses-trump-supporters-as-being-racist

    Buttigig seems to think that the way to attract Trump voters is to falsely accuse them of being racists..

    Interesting strategy...

    :eyeroll:

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rut Roh....

    MSNBC, CNN rip House Dems over 'failure' Lewandowski hearing: 'They don't know what they're doing'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-cnn-rip-house-dems-over-failure-lewandowski-hearing-they-dont-know-what-theyre-doing

    The water-carriers are getting restless... :D

    CNN and MSNBC are finally beginning to realize what President Trump and Trump supporters have known all along..

    The Democrats are morons...

    :D

    I have a feeling it's going to be a great great day!!! :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    NBC News correspondent Ken Dilanian suggested to MSNBC's Ali Velshi that Democratic lawmakers were primarily focused on "getting their moment on television" than getting the facts from their witness.

    “I think it has largely been a failure in part because Democrats have been more interested in getting their moment on television of yelling at Corey Lewandowski and making the point and winning the argument rather than patiently questioning him," Dilanian said.

    Oh SNAP!!!

    What!!! Democrats are more interested in being on TV than anything else!!???

    SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!! :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW,

    Maybe a commentary on the Democrat's failed impeachment process would be a lot of fun, eh??

    Well, it would be a lot of fun for me anyways.. :D heh

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    And there is strife in Arizona

    Pro-Trump votes may get Sen. Kyrsten Sinema censured by fellow Arizona Dems: report

    U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema may face a censure vote by Arizona’s Democratic Party because she votes too often in favor of President Trump’s agenda, according to a report.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-kyrsten-sinema-may-face-censure-from-arizona-dems-over-pro-trump-votes

    Democrats don't like it when Sinema puts her constituents before Party...

    Thass OK, Dims.. Chase her right into the open arms of the GOP... :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since joining the Senate in January, Sinema has opposed Trump 81 percent of the time, The Arizona Republic reported, citing data from the FiveThirtyEight Trump Tracker.

    That’s apparently not often enough to satisfy many of her fellow Democrats in the Grand Canyon State.

    “Here’s the thing: We really support Kyrsten Sinema, we want her to succeed, we want her to be the best senator in the country,” Dan O’Neal, state coordinator for Progressive Democrats of America, told the Republic. “But the way she is voting is really disappointing. We want Democrats to vote like Democrats and not Republicans.”

    Allow me to translate:

    Toe the Party line and to HELL with your Constituents!!!

    That's the Dumbocrat Party..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another day... Another Biden gaffe..

    Biden vows tax credit will put '720 million women' back in workforce
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-gaffe-put-720-million-women-in-workforce

    :eyeroll:

    Joe, Joe, Joe... Why didn't you listen...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You get a tax break for a racehorse, why in God's name couldn't we provide an $8,000 tax credit for everybody who has childcare costs? It would put 720 million women back in the workforce. It would increase the GDP, to sound like a wonk here, by about eight-tenths of one percent. It would grow the economy."
    -Joe Biden

    Mr Biden?? Can I ask you a question?? It's an easy one..

    How can your tax credit put 720 million women BACK into the workforce when this country's ENTIRE POPULATION is only 330 million??

    You think about that and get back with me, OK?? I'll be here all day..

    {sssiiiiggghhhhhh}

    Joe.. Why oh why did you not listen...??? :^(

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:
  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Be still my palpitating heart...

    https://assets.realclear.com/images/46/460058_6_.jpg

    :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Happy Constitution Day. Yes, it was 232 years ago -- doesn’t it only seem like yesterday? -- that America’s Founding Fathers signed the document with that stunningly eloquent three-word preamble: “We the People.”

    Although the definition of “we” has expanded over time, as it had to -- thus confirming the Framers’ foresight -- it is more fashionable today to focus on the Framers’ gender and race than their genius.

    You can have a popular Broadway show assailing the U.S. Constitution, which seems odd, but that’s a nod to the Founders, too, as the First Amendment attests.

    Governments that give voice to the people are always going to be restive, even contentious, as National Aeronautics and Space Administration officials discovered 43 years ago. Moreover, it is often the people, not the experts or the government, who are proven right. So it was on this date in 1976 when the first space shuttle was unveiled in the California desert.

    The USS ENTERPRISE..

    Interesting story.. In celebration of CONSTITUTION DAY, President Ford was going to name the first shuttle, the USS CONSTITUTION...

    But "WE THE PEOPLE" had other ideas... :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was America’s bicentennial, which President Gerald R. Ford had been honoring in a series of speeches that year, and NASA officials believed that their choice of a name for the first ship in the fleet -- the Space Shuttle Constitution -- would be right up the president’s alley.

    They were mistaken, as we’ll see in a moment.

    * * *

    Although I’ve written previously about the naming of NASA’s first space shuttle, this bit of Americana has never seemed so timely as it does now. “Space Shuttle Constitution” would have been a fine name, and NASA’s decision to unveil it on Sept. 17, 1976, was a deft public relations touch.

    And yet, a couple of weeks before the “reveal,” White House officials let it be known that the prototype’s name was being changed to the Space Shuttle Enterprise. But why?

    Why, indeed.. :D Because there is no power greater than that of WE THE PEOPLE...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll let ya'all just read the rest of this heartwarming tale celebrating the greatness of WE THE PEOPLE without further comment..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who knew today was going to be such an awesome day!!! :D

    HAPPY CONSTITUTION DAY...

    HAPPY USS ENTERPRISE DAY!!! :D

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    You are right that if no one votes unless they vote for a small donor candidate there will be no democracy because no one will be voting.

    That is because there are no small donor candidates running in the majority or maybe even all of our federal and state level elections.

    There will also be no one participating in One Demand as participants in One Demand would be voting to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates.

    It is you that are telling a fairy tale when you infer that particpants in One Demand will not be voting.

    If you could make a reality based argument against One Demand you would have done so which is why you have to make up fairy tales to protect your delusions or simply to try to delude others.

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    To quote Pete Buttigieg:

    "We have accepted the unacceptable for too long."

    He was talking about gun control, but we should apply that basic statement to campaign financing as well because big money infecting and corrupting our political process is the main reason we are accepting the unacceptable on just aboot every other issue.

    It really is that simple.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    I don't really expect an answer, just more insults, and that's OK, because I'm fully cognizant of your personal problems/handicaps.

    Just hang in there, best you can. You know everything that's driving you over the edge will be OK "when the Mueller report comes out", right?

    Can you imagine the pandemonium around here when President Trump not only wins re-election, but the GOP takes back the House??

    OMG...

    "IT WAS PANDO-LERIUM!!!"
    -Jeff Foxworthy

    :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    To quote Pete Buttigieg:

    "We have accepted the unacceptable for too long."

    He was talking about gun control,

    Yes he was..

    And it's VERY telling that NO ONE on the LEFT, not even anyone here in Weigantia (sans myself of course) can say what it takes to BE acceptable in the context of the 2nd Amendment..

    Not a SINGLE person..

    Amazing, iddn't it..

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    9

    AR-15 and AK-47 are generic terms to designate any semi-automatic rifle..

    You're claiming an "AK-47" is a generic term to designate any semi-automatic rifle?

    Incorrect. I don't care what they're calling the "AK variants" made in America or elsewhere that aren't fully automatic, but an "Avtomat Kalashnikova" -- also known as "AK-47" -- is a select fire fully automatic rifle. "Avtomat" is literally Russian for "automatic." Kalishnikov trademarked "AK-47" in (I believe) 2014, and as such, it's also not a "generic term" regardless of whether or not people use this brand incorrectly.

    "AR-15" -- ArmaLite Rifle is also not a "generic term" no matter how many times you type that it is. Although people can obviously use this trademarked term that is owned by Colt to describe any number of "AR variants," it doesn't change the fact that it isn't a "generic term."

    "Kleenex" and "Coke" are also trademarks and thus not "generic terms," although people also use these trademarked terms to describe other trademarked and/or generic brands of tissue and soda, of course.

    Now do "Tylenol" brand. Hint: "acetaminophen." :)

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Beto O’Rourke riding gun confiscation back into relevancy
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/beto-orourke-riding-gun-confiscation-back-into-relevancy

    I bet Democrats are simply THRILLED that Beto let the cat out of the bag and stated for the record that Democrats ARE going to confiscate Americans' guns...

    I for one, want to thank Beto for rendering ANY anti-Gun Democrat as un-electable.. :D

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    10

    You Democrats didn't care when Odumbo was ballon'ing the deficit up to unheard of heights when he was in office.

    Ya'all lost all moral authority to complain about it..

    You lost all moral authority to complain about criminals too, but that hasn't stopped you. :)

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    "To be clear, you should keep your AR-15s. If you purchased that AR-15, if you own it, keep it. Continue to use it responsibly. If you own a gun, keep that gun. Nobody wants to take it away from you — at least I don’t want to do that."
    -Beto, Apr 2018

    "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore!"
    -Beto, Sep 2019

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, those with much lesser intelligence, the borderline MORON types, will claim that it's OK because Beto changed his mind after a mass shooting in his own district..

    EXACTLY...

    Beto's position today is borne SOLELY and COMPLETELY from hysterical emotionalism...

    This country's legislative process is designed to PREVENT exactly that type of hysterical, overly-emotional law making..

    Calm, rational and objective is how laws are to be made..

    Beto's hysterics and emotionalism is ANTI-AMERICAN...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    From Biden To Beto, See Dems Call For Gun Confiscation | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vimzTbRX5tw

    This is a LOSING path for Democrats..

    But ya know Democrats.. They love to skip joyfully and gleefully down the LOSING path...

    It's part of their DNA...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes. Hillary Clinton, Martha Coakley, whatever. We as a party will do whatever it takes to lose.
    -dsws

    And as BETO has proven beyond ANY doubt....

  46. [46] 
    dsws wrote:

    [39]

    Brand names can and often do become generic. Most kleenex is not Kleenex brand. Most bandaids are not Band-Aid brand. They started off as brand names, but they're now words in English that refer to the product generically. It's a regional difference whether "coke" means Coca-Cola product specifically or soda in general. I think "Tylenol" usually means Tylenol brand, but it's sometimes used to refer to acetaminophen generically.

    I don't know whether this has happened with AK-47s and Kalashnikovs, but I don't think so. When I read a news article saying that some massacre was committed with 26 pistols and two AK-47s, and 150 additional firearms including half a dozen Kalashnikovs were found at the perpetrator's home, I assume that the description is actually specifying the make and model.

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    12

    Interesting..

    In August, 53 people died in "mass shootings"...

    Over 40,000 died from obesity..

    Nobody shoved the food in their faces and forced them to eat it.

    If Democrats applied their peculiar brand of "logic" to THAT, they would ban ALL spoons, forks and knifes..

    THAT is the Dumbocrat mentality...

    Wrong. Anyone with their head not planted firmly up their ass is well aware what the Obama Administration attempted to do to combat obesity in America, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with spoons, forks, and knives, which are generally required to eat nutritious foods such as vegetables and salads. In point of fact, the types of foods they were encouraging much less consumption were the ones not requiring eating utensils at all: french fries, fried burgers, etc. :)

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's take a gander at the history of gun confiscation, shall we..

    “What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”
    -Adolf Hitler

    “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
    -Mao Tse Tung

    “If the opposition (citizen) disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
    -Joseph Stalin

    “Government begins at the end of the gun barrel.”
    -Chairman Mao again...

    “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”
    -Adolf Hitler again

    Now, let's fast forward to today..

    “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47..”
    -Former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke

    “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”
    -Barack Hussein Obama

    “If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
    -Senator Diane Feinstein

    “We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”
    -Rahm Emmanuel

    “If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.”
    -Bill Clinton

    The message is clear..

    Democrats want to join the murderous and brutal club that is history's most despicable and heinous dictators...

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    Brand names can and often do become generic. Most kleenex is not Kleenex brand. Most bandaids are not Band-Aid brand. They started off as brand names, but they're now words in English that refer to the product generically. It's a regional difference whether "coke" means Coca-Cola product specifically or soda in general. I think "Tylenol" usually means Tylenol brand, but it's sometimes used to refer to acetaminophen generically.

    Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows this to be factually accurate...

    Alas, that leaves out a good portion of Weigantians..

    I don't know whether this has happened with AK-47s and Kalashnikovs, but I don't think so.

    It has.. Take a gander of the GOOGLE IMAGES pages I referred too.. Or talk to someone who actually KNOWS a thing or two about guns.. Your choices on that are limited to one person here (yours truly) so you will have to look elsewhere for the facts if you don't want to accept mine.. :D

    I assume that the description is actually specifying the make and model.

    Most uninformed people do.. No offence intended..

    But I can assure you when you read about someone using an AR-15 to commit a crime, you can bet that it was something other than the official Armalite weapon..

    There have been news reports where an AR-15 was identified as the weapon, but in actuality, it was a shotgun..

    Left Wing reporters are lazy and the go for, as Joe Biden would say, their "truth" over the actual facts..

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    [46] dsws wrote:
    [39]

    Brand names can and often do become generic.

    Brand names by definition are not generic.

    Most kleenex is not Kleenex brand.

    Wrong. Most "paper tissue" is not "Kleenex" brand. Kleenex is a trademark and thus not a generic name.

    Kleen·ex
    /?kl??neks/

    noun TRADEMARK

    noun: Kleenex; plural noun: Kleenex; plural noun: Kleenexes

    an absorbent disposable paper tissue.

    Most bandaids are not Band-Aid brand.

    Most "adhesive bandages" are not "Band-Aid" brand. Band-Aid is a trademark and thus not a generic.

    They started off as brand names, but they're now words in English that refer to the product generically.

    Wrong. They're trademarked names that are used widely to describe other brand and/or generic names.

    It's a regional difference whether "coke" means Coca-Cola product specifically or soda in general.

    Regardless of how or where it is used, "Coke" is a registered trademark of Coca-Cola and therefore not a generic term either.

    I think "Tylenol" usually means Tylenol brand, but it's sometimes used to refer to acetaminophen generically.

    Tylenol is a trademarked brand name for the generic drug acetaminophen... regardless of how its used, it's not a generic term.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think "Tylenol" usually means Tylenol brand, but it's sometimes used to refer to acetaminophen generically.

    And Aleve is interchangable with Ibuprofen..

    As I said.. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows this to be factually accurate..

    Those that argue against it are just morons looking to pick a nit here or there in a vain attempt to discredit the entire statement.

    As usual... They fail..

    "Failed.. Failed.. IMPRESSIVELY FAILED.."
    -NASA Doctor, ARMAGEDDON

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your choices on that are limited to one person here (yours truly) so you will have to look elsewhere for the facts if you don't want to accept mine.. :D

    Don't worry.. I won't be offended.. :D

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    46

    You can argue this stuff until the cows come home. You're talking free speech, while I'm talking legal naming. A trademark is still a trademark regardless of whether or not people consider it a generic name.

    "Coke," "AR-15," "Band-Aid," "Kleenex" and similar terms are what are known as "generic trademarks" or "genericized trademarks" and also referred to as "proprietary eponyms," or trademarks or brand names that have become "generic" generally against the intentions of the trademark's holder.

    Legally, an AR-15 isn't a "generic term" nor is "AK-47." Full stop. Since Mike keeps claiming that these terms can't be legally defined, I'm explaining how they not only can be legally defined, but they most definitely legally defined because they are both trademarked by law. Colt owns "AR-15." It is already legally defined. "AK-47" is also already legally defined under trademark.

    States who do ban weapons use legal definitions, and I can assure you they have no trouble defining the type of "AR-15" semi-automatic and "AK-47" automatic weapons and "AR variants" and "AK variants" that are banned by their respective states. :)

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/31/us/assault-weapons-ban.html

    Explains PERFECTLY why it is completely and utterly USELESS to ban weapons solely because they "look scary"...

    The 2nd Amendment and good old American ingenuity ALWAYS wins out..

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    The 2nd Amendment is an inconvenient truth all its own. You can't regulate guns like cars, because cars are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution; guns are, whatever one thinks the 2nd Amendment means. California is demonstrating the limits of regulating technology that at its core is simple and easily modified.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    As to Bump Stock bans??

    As I said, ridiculous..

    But no gun manufacturers have a workaround with the Binary Trigger...

    Great job morons.. Now you have made it easier uber-rapid fire without the drawbacks of a bump stock..

    Dumbocrats need to THINK before they strike.. :^/

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    But no gun manufacturers have a workaround with the Binary Trigger...

    That should read But NOW gun manufacturers have a workaround with the Binary Trigger...

    My bust...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    But NOW gun manufacturers have a workaround with the Binary Trigger...

    For those out there who are completely and utterly ignorant of guns.....

    "You mean to insult me? There is no dishonor in not knowing everything"
    -Sub Commander T'al, STAR TREK

    ... A binary trigger allows a second primer strike with the trigger is released..

    In other words, a single pull/release of the trigger results in 2 bullets being fired, instead of the normal one..

    With practice, a shooter can have all the benefits of a bump stock without the devastating drawback to accuracy with a bump stock..

    In short, by moving to curtail rapid fire semi-automatic fire, hysterical anti-gun nuts have made it SIMPLER, CHEAPER and MORE EFFICIENT..

    President Trump was a moron for allow himself to be manipulated into this boondoggle...

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Motorist plows into the lobby of Trump hotel..

    Multiple injuries.

    Authorities don't know for sure, but dollars to quatloos it was a disgruntled Trump/America hater??

    "Is there another kind??"
    -Colonel Nathan R Jessup, A FEW GOOD MEN

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    51

    And Aleve is interchangable with Ibuprofen..

    Wrong again, Mike. "Aleve" is a trademarked name owned by Bayer and is the best-known brand name for over-the-counter generic name "naproxen sodium." The "Aleve" trademark has nothing whatsoever to do with "ibuprofen." You wouldn't capitalize "Ibuprofen" like you did there because it's a generic drug... that has nothing whatsoever to do with "Aleve."

    "Advil" trademarked by Pfizer and "Motrin" trademarked by McNeil are two of the best-known brand names for the generic drug "ibuprofen."

    As I said.. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows this to be factually accurate..

    Your statement is not "factually accurate" so less than 2 brain cells must be your problem.

    Those that argue against it are just morons looking to pick a nit here or there in a vain attempt to discredit the entire statement.

    Yep, 1 brain cell... confirmed.

    As usual... They fail..

    We accept your admission that you failed spectacularly. :)

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump reads the riot act to Beto..

    Trump warns 'Dummy Beto' making gun deal 'much harder' with confiscation rhetoric
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dummy-beto-making-gun-deal-much-harder-with-confiscation-rhetoric

    Beto is doing TONS more harm to the Democrats Gun Control agenda than the NRA could EVER hope to do..

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    As many of ya'all know, I am not a fan of WaPoop....

    But when one of the main Dumbocrat Water Carriers viciously slaps down ANOTHER main Dumbocrat Water Carrier...

    That's something worth sitting up and taking notice..

    Opinions | The New York Times’s travesty of journalistic ethics
    Kathleen Parker
    Washington Post

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinions-the-new-york-timess-travesty-of-journalistic-ethics/ar-AAHrKnQ

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    The recent fiasco at the New York Times, which last weekend published the latest uncorroborated sexual assault accusation against Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, was a monument to hearsay and a travesty of journalistic ethics.

    Wow.. Ms Parker doesn't beat around the bush, does she... :D

    The story, since modified to include crucial information, was an adapted excerpt from a book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” written by two Times staff writers, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. In it, the authors reported allegations by a Yale classmate that Kavanaugh was at a “drunken dorm party” where “friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”

    Setting aside the logistics of such a feat, more eye-popping was the omission from the original Times piece that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed for the book — and, according to friends, doesn’t remember any such incident .

    Such an oversight is inexcusable.

    Except your Democrats will excuse it.. Because their Trump/America hate exceeds all other considerations.

    The Times added these details to the story after they were flagged by the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway, who had an advance copy of the book. The Times writers, who said the details had been in the excerpt’s initial draft, made media rounds Monday and Tuesday to explain the omission, and essentially blamed editors, who, they said, “in the haste” of trying to close out production, had deleted the reference.

    The facts that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed by the authors, and apparently told friends that she doesn’t recall any such incident, amount to the very definition of a non-story. For the record, The Post learned of the accusation last year but declined to publish it because the alleged witnesses weren’t identified and the woman said to be involved refused to comment.

    Indeed, the authors’ only sources for the claim were two unnamed officials who spoke to Washington attorney Max Stier, who last year apparently told the FBI and various senators that he witnessed the alleged incident. But Stier refused to talk to the Times writers himself.

    What IS it about you Democrats where anonymous or "un named" sources are ALL you ever have???

    Some Democratic contenders for the presidency immediately called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment. They include Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.), former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Tex.) and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

    Of course.. "DUE PROCESS"??? That's only for DEMOCRATs.... :eyeroll:

    But let’s rewind the reel a bit. With apologies to my grandmothers, the reason the Times writers likely included the penis-in-hand accusation at all is because it added context to the accusations by both Deborah Ramirez, who alleged last year that she experienced sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh at another boozy Yale party, and Christine Blasey Ford.

    Ramirez, for her part, initially wasn’t quite sure of events. She has admitted to time lapses and also to having been drunk, but told the New Yorker and the Times writers that she remembers brushing away a penis thrust in her face, allegedly by Kavanaugh.

    If these stories are true, then Kavanaugh could have been a creepy, perhaps monstrous, drunk in his youth. But all we have to go by are alleged victims who also were drinking at the time, and comments from former classmates — who may also have been inebriated — some of whom corroborate the Ramirez accusation and others who dispute it. The Times writers reported finding seven people who they say corroborated Ramirez’s story, but much of what they documented were second- and third-hand reports, things overheard and, yes, Ramirez’s mother, to whom she apparently said, “Something happened at Yale.”

    Not exactly a wrap for justice.

    Justice??? Shirley you jest..

    Democrats AREN'T about "justice".. They are all about their Trump/America hate..

    The truth is, Kavanaugh has been the target of a media siege since his name was announced for consideration for the high court. Ramirez’s story was first reported by the New Yorker just days before Ford’s congressional testimony, which, frankly, was flimsy at best. None of the other four people Ford named as attending the high school party where she claimed Kavanaugh groped her recalled any such gathering. One of them, a close friend and the only other female, Leland Keyser , not only doesn’t remember the party but says she’s never even met Kavanaugh.

    What’s all too clear is that America’s privileged youth had a serious drinking problem in the early 1980s, and boozy memories from high school and young adulthood are unreliable. Far more troubling is that several presidential candidates seemingly would impeach a Supreme Court justice on nothing more than hearsay — and impeachable journalism.

    Of course..

    It's all aboot the Trump/America hate.

    Nothing else matters..

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    The FACTS can no longer be denied..

    With Brett Kavanaugh debacle, The New York Times becomes a dangerous misinformation tool of the left
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/17/with-brett-kavanaugh-debacle-the-new-york-times-be/

    The NY GRIME is a failure as a legitimate news source..

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    I didn't know you were a writer for Real Clear Policits!! :D

    Just Admit It, Democrats: You Want to Lose Next Year

    If Democratic Party leaders aren’t re-watching last week’s debate in Houston, they should. If they have watched it and aren’t freaking out over what they see, it’s fair to ask whether they actually want Donald Trump to win a second term. That session was a debacle for the party and the field: Nearly three tortuous hours of tails wagging dogs, petty sniping, and a lack of vision all the Lasik surgery in the world couldn’t cure.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/18/just_admit_it_democrats_you_want_to_lose_next_year_141282.html

    Hehehehehe

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    The knock from Republicans, Never-Trumpers, and moderate Democrats is that most of the 2020 candidates are too far to the left and out of touch. Last week’s display confirmed it. This was a definitive example of a party controlled by its fringe elements, preferring purity over victory.

    Houston featured a grab bag of turn-offs for independent voters. First, the elitist policy prescriptions put forth by most of the candidates have the dubious distinction of being out of step with most Americans while also being hugely expensive. Next, the field displayed an inability to understand that their words will reach the ears of all who will vote next November, not just those that show up to snowy Iowa churches in February.

    While it makes sense for Democrats to want to please their base, in the past, the Dem candidates have, AT LEAST, kept an eye on the General Election..

    This current gaggle of Dim candidates do no such thing..

    They are running as if the Primary Election is the ONLY election they have to win...

    They are cementing themselves into far Left positions that they will NEVER be able to find their way back to appeal to Independents and NPAs...

    And what's so hilarious is that there are 3 other Weigantians who have gone on the record as saying the EXACT same thing!! :D

    And yet, the Weigantian Peanut Gallery refuses to acknowledge the FACTS...

    "Typical... "
    -Janine Melnitz, GHOSTBUSTERS II

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hewing to the base during primary season is nothing new. The new twist this election season is that most of the candidates leave themselves with almost no escape hatch back to the middle. It's as if they don’t want one. Two of the three Democratic front-runners, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, are staking their candidacies on extraordinarily progressive stances on issues such as health care, the environment and the economy.

    When moderators pressed Warren on whether middle-class taxes would go up, she bobbed and weaved to avoid an answer. Matching the unpopularity of your platform with a lack of candor about who will pay for it is rarely a path to electoral success.

    Again, it's as if Democrats WANT to lose the election and lose the House..

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not to be outdone on the planetarily out-of-touch scale, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow D.C. Democrats are reportedly planning to target President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as prime examples of how the Republican Party disrespects all three branches of government.

    This seems to be the type of data-driven, glossy argument that Beltway politicians and consultants love. After all, everyone in America hates Trump, McConnell and Kavanaugh, right? Maybe. Or maybe they don’t know them all that well (aside from Trump) and after all the terrible 30-second attack ads, voters will be in the same place they started: These guys may (or may not) be bad actors, but what are you offering instead? More bull about how the “process” matters? Yes, process and institutions matter, but for folks whose Job 1 is getting through the day or worrying about their kids' welfare, better government is a byproduct of vision and leadership.

    Democrats simply are talking AT the American people.. Not even CONSIDERING for a second that the American people feel differently .. :eyeroll:

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is not a recipe for success. What propelled Ronald Reagan to the White House? It wasn’t anger and resentment. It was a vision of the United States, for all its problems, as a City on a Hill. Reagan believed in America and after four years of Jimmy Carter’s malaise, voters latched on.

    How did Barack Obama become the first African American president in our history? "Hope and Change" and the ability to communicate that he was ready and willing to pull our nation out of its foreign troubles and lead We the People out of our domestic emergencies appealed to a broad cross-section of Americans, sweeping him into office. Don’t believe me? He won Indiana in 2008.

    What did personal performance and optimistic vision allow both Reagan and Obama to achieve? They built coalitions of voters who otherwise had little in common, racially, demographically or geographically. Their elections were turning points in American political history.

    Democrats are all about hate and intolerance.. THAT is what they are trying to sell to the American people..

    It won't work...

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    American voters may be currently unhappy, but they are still open-minded. If Democrats decide to continue on their current track, lacking vision, optimism or any coherent alternative to a president who is clearly unfit for the job, they’ll have only themselves to blame. The country is telling you what it wants.

    As Alec Baldwin says in his seminal scene in "Glengarry Glen Ross," “They’re out there waiting for you…” The Democrats who want to be president and run the country have to ask themselves “Do you have what it takes? Can you close these voters? No?”

    Coffee is for closers only.

    And Democrats will NOT be able to close this deal..

    It's really THAT simple...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Com'on people!!!

    Try and keep up!!!

    Ya'all keep falling by the way side.. :D

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    MORE HARM THAN GOOD?

    Democrats Worry O’Rourke is Emboldening the NRA With Gun Confiscation Proposal

    As his “hell yes” comment drew massive applause, not all Democrats were thrilled with the 2020 contender’s move.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-worry-orourke-is-emboldening-the-nra-with-gun-confiscation-proposal

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    If there was ever any doubt that Democrats were NOT all about gun confiscation...

    Democrat Congressman: We Should Confiscate Guns and If You Fight Back, the Government Has Nukes to Deal With It
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/11/16/swalwell-gun-comments-n2536106

    THIS Democrat moron even advocates a Democrat White House to use **NUKES** on Americans that resist gun confiscation.. :eyeroll:

    Remind me again how Democrats are "electable"??

    Because, from the viewpoint of a rational patriotic American, that "electable" ship has sailed...

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno.. I have to admit.. I am proud of you people..

    I mean ALL the hits.. ALL the setbacks... ***ALL*** the loses you and your Democrats are experiencing.

    And yet, ya'all still comment here merrily every day..

    Oh.. Wait... :D

    Maybe ya'all can pray from something REALLY **REALLY** bad to happen to this country..

    THEN ya'all can be happy again.. :eyeroll:

    I am heading to lunch.. Back in an hour.. :D

    Toodles...

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yes, conservatives love to talk about the second amendment and the right to bear arms, but apparently they can't count to sixteen when it comes to taxes.

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived

    so, whether you earned what you have or had it handed to you on a silver stock ticker, the rest of us are entitled to a cut.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived

    so, whether you earned what you have or had it handed to you on a silver stock ticker, the rest of us are entitled to a cut.

    I assume you are talking about your idea to levy gross and burdensome taxes on ammunition..

    You are correct, of course.. Congress has the power to levy taxes..

    But THAT power is held in check by the FACT that the government can't levy taxes in violation of the US Constitution..

    For example, the power to levy taxes is NOT the power to levy heavier or more taxes on white people than on black people..

    The power to levy taxes is NOT the power to levy MORE taxes against those who would speak against the government..

    So, while Congress CAN levy taxes, they cannot do so for the purpose of making ANOTHER Constitutional right unduly burdensome..

    Credit where credit is due.. At LEAST you tried to come up with a law..

    But it won't work because it is unconstitutional..

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or did I misunderstand your point completely?? :D

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    To do what you propose would be the equivalent of massive gasoline taxes to combat Drunk Driving..

    And even THAT is not really comparable because there is no constitution right to own or drive a car..

    But it's close enough to indicate the fallacy of the idea..

    But again.. At least you are coming up with ideas...

    That puts you ahead of everyone else..

  79. [79] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Or did I misunderstand your point completely?? :D

    well, yes. i'm saying that conservatives who claim that it's wrong to tax their income are just like liberals who say it's wrong to own guns. believe what you want, but the constitution says different.

  80. [80] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Strangely, this news got very little attention from anyone -- the media, politicians, or even economists. Perhaps next month, when the actual annual figure is released, it will get a little more attention.

    I wonder if this lack of reporting is due to the fact that the decision makers in media stand to realize the most money from these tax cuts.

    Other than that the usual suspects who post here are in fine form. Most aren't reading the other's posts accurately, Don Harris is flogging One Demand and I see from the volume of posts that Mikhail "Michale" is back on meth.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    well, yes. i'm saying that conservatives who claim that it's wrong to tax their income are just like liberals who say it's wrong to own guns.

    Yes, I would agree with that statement.

    believe what you want, but the constitution says different.

    Actually no.. The Constitution says exactly what I believe..

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Other than that the usual suspects who post here are in fine form. Most aren't reading the other's posts accurately, Don Harris is flogging One Demand and I see from the volume of posts that Mikhail "Michale" is back on meth.

    Says the luser who hides behind spyware scripts..

    But it's glad to see I still have that free space in your head.. :D

    Keep confirming that.. It amuses me.. :D

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or did I misunderstand your point completely?? :D

    well, yes.

    In my defense, it would help if you quoted exactly what you are responding to.. :D

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, let's see what we can look at for our afternoon session.. :D

    Communist group torches US flag in protest of Trump’s Los Angeles visit
    https://nypost.com/2019/09/18/communist-group-torches-us-flag-in-protest-of-trumps-los-angeles-visit/

    Ooooo Democrats are in fine form today..

    Their Trump/America hate is front and center.. :D

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the latest bitch-slap that Democrat so-called "leaders" in California receive from President Trump...

    Trump administration revokes California’s authority to set auto mileage standards
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-revokes-californias-authority-to-set-auto-mileage-standards

    Trump slaps them down again!!! :D

    So, what ya say, California??? Ya'all ready to secede from the Union??

    hehehehehehehehehe

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see from the volume of posts that Mikhail "Michale"

    "You're so stupid you actually think that is an insult."
    -Denzel Washington, THE SEIGE

  87. [87] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    A Republican state senator in Pennsylvania resigned Wednesday after being arrested on charges of child sexual abuse and child pornography.

    State GOP leaders said they had received a letter of resignation from state Sen. Mike Folmer (R), who was charged Tuesday night, after law enforcement officials found images of child porn on a Tumblr account belonging to him and on his iPhone.

    Republicants. :eyeroll:

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    I agree.. Disgusting..

    Just like the Dumbocrat who shot up a Dayton Bar and the eco-terrorist who shot up an El Paso Walmart...

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, are you here to tell me which guns will be banned and the criteria for banning them??

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let's not forget...

    John Wayne Gacy and Jeffery Epstein were Democrats as well... :D

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    35

    You are right that if no one votes unless they vote for a small donor candidate there will be no democracy because no one will be voting.

    No shit, Don.

    That is because there are no small donor candidates running in the majority or maybe even all of our federal and state level elections.

    No shit, Don.

    There will also be no one participating in One Demand as participants in One Demand would be voting to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates.

    I don't give a shit, Don.

    It is you that are telling a fairy tale when you infer that particpants in One Demand will not be voting.

    I said nothing about your 4 participants who have promised/pledged to vote for themselves in an exercise of de facto self-disenfranchisement. I was speaking about the tens of millions of other voters.

    If you could make a reality based argument against One Demand you would have done so which is why you have to make up fairy tales to protect your delusions or simply to try to delude others.

    I have made several reality based arguments against "One Demand," and I'm not the only commenter on this board who has done that, including the author of the blog.

    If you'd like me to present you with yet another reality based argument against "One Demand," I will be more than happy to do that yet again:

    FUN FACT: Anagrams for Don Harris's failed attempt at political activism:

    * Damned One
    * Demean Don

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, are you here to tell me which guns will be banned and the criteria for banning them??

    BAAAGGAAAWWKKK

    hehehe :D

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    What if Democrats threw and impeachment and frak'ed it all up!?? :D

    Democrats, stuck in Watergate mode, bungle Lewandowski testimony
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/democrats-stuck-in-watergate-mode-bungle-lewandowski-testimony

    I swear, Democrats could screw up an iron football!!

    :D

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee figured out what President Trump did to them? By the looks of their questioning of Corey Lewandowski on Tuesday, the answer is no.

    Democrats chose the former Trump campaign manager for their first hearing after declaring the committee is considering impeaching the president. They apparently thought Lewandowski would elaborate on his extensive testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller and also on his testimony from earlier investigations by other House and Senate committees.

    Instead, Lewandowski jerked Democrats around — and around and around. He delayed. He asked for specific citations when anyone referred to the Mueller report. He repeated, over and over, his instructions from the Trump White House not to discuss his conversations with the president.

    “The White House has directed that I not disclose the substance of any discussion with the president or his advisers to protect executive branch confidentiality,” Lewandowski said, over and over and over.

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Poor Democrats.. President Trump is playing them like a well-worn fiddle.. And Democrats fall all over themselves dancing to President Trump's tune.. :D

    Seriously, guys.. I can see why ya'all don't post here much..

    It must be completely and utterly humiliating for ya'all :D

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler was visibly frustrated from the start. "'When you refuse to answer these questions, you are obstructing the work of our committee," Nadler said. "You are also proving our point for the American people to see: The president is intent on obstructing our legitimate oversight. You are aiding him in that obstruction."

    "And I will remind you," Nadler continued, "that Article 3 of the impeachment against President Nixon was based on obstruction of Congress."

    Perhaps Nadler thought that was a killer argument. But rather than highlight similarities between the Trump-Russia affair and Watergate, Nadler's reference to Richard Nixon served to show the differences — and why Democrats are having so much trouble getting an impeachment effort off the ground.

    Nadler whines and cries and stamps his feet..

    THEN he proceeds to totally demolish his own argument!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Article 1 of the impeachment of Nixon began with an underlying crime: that agents of his reelection committee broke into Democratic National Committee headquarters. In Trump-Russia, the underlying crime — the DNC hack — was committed by Russians in Russia without any involvement of the Trump campaign. Article 1 then went on to accuse Nixon and his men of engaging "in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities."

    That was the heart of the Nixon impeachment, that the president obstructed the special counsel's investigation into Watergate.

    But Trump and his team, faced with a special counsel investigation, made a radically different decision. Beyond refusing to testify to special counsel Mueller — which Mueller never demanded he do — Trump cooperated fully with the investigation. Trump, who could have followed a Nixonian course of claiming executive privilege over all sorts of material, instead opened up the White House to Mueller's investigators. Trump directed his people to testify and turn over thousands of documents to Mueller.

    Don McGahn, the White House counsel, famously testified for 30 hours before Mueller's prosecutors. All other key figures testified as well. That included Lewandowski, who said Tuesday that he spent hours with the Mueller team.

    The fact is, House Democrats know what they know about the Trump-Russia matter, and in particular about alleged obstruction of justice in the White House, because Lewandowski and others in the Trump circle cooperated so fully with the Mueller investigation. They did so at the specific direction of the president.

    And now, Democrats want to press a case of obstruction of justice against Trump.

    Dumbocrats are whining and crying because President Trump and other patriotic Americans won't dance to the Dumbocrats tune..

    The people are being 100% factual and honest and, in doing so, TOTALLY demolish the Dumbocrat's position.. :D

    Dumbocrats are TOTALLY destroying their own credibility!!

    I LOVE IT!!! :D

  97. [97] 
    Kick wrote:

    Time to update my House retirements list. Republicans are still leaving in droves.

    House incumbents who have announced their retirement from public office:

    Republicans

    AL-02 Martha Roby
    CA-08 Paul Cook
    GA-07 Rob Woodall
    IL-15 John Shimkus
    IN-05 Susan Brooks
    MI-10 Paul Mitchell
    TX-11 Mike Conaway
    TX-17 Bill Flores
    TX-22 Pete Olson
    TX-23 Will Hurd
    TX-24 Kenny Marchant
    UT-01 Rob Bishop
    WI-05 Jim Sensenbrenner

    Democrats

    CA-53 Susan Davis
    IA-02 Dave Loebsack
    NY-15 Jose Serrano
    _______________

    Retirements by incumbents generally signal the Party lawmakers believe will control the House; the insiders are predicting Blue.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    The bottom line is that Trump has flummoxed Watergate-fixated Democrats with a simple strategy: cooperate with the special counsel. In not cooperating with the Judiciary Committee leadership, he is in effect arguing that he has already cooperated with the important investigation and does not have to cooperate with a political investigation on Capitol Hill, especially when the House leadership cannot decide whether it is a formal impeachment proceeding or not.

    Democrats are so confused and decimated, they don't even know what's UP or DOWN anymore..

    WELCOME to President Trump politics..

    ***DOMINATION***

    :D

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Architect of the Latest Kavanaugh Smear Just Gave a Self-Damning Radio Interview

    Her approach to reporting the story is a textbook case of confirmation bias.
    https://tinyurl.com/y4m88azv

    Amazing how the NY GRIME put out a total bullshit hit piece on Justice Kavanaugh..

    And no one here bats an eye...

    :eyeroll:

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Her approach to reporting the story is a textbook case of confirmation bias.
    There is no substantiated evidence of any sexual misbehavior by Brett Kavanaugh at any point in his entire life. Several shaky claims have been made along these lines, but all of them are badly undercut by available evidence. None of them is more likely than not to be true.

    Yet in a casual radio interview this morning, New York Times reporter Robin Pogrebin, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, gave an unintentionally revealing report about her approach to the story. Following Christine Blasey Ford’s hard-to-believe testimony, which was undercut by all witnesses she placed at the party in question, including a lifelong friend of hers, and following Deborah Ramirez’s hard-to-believe story, which she herself admitted being uncertain about, Pogrebin obviously became subjected to confirmation bias. She had a narrative in mind and she pushed and pulled her writing to fit it.

    That's a Demorat for you..

    Facts be damned, she is all about bullshit, hatred, intolerance and bigotry..

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Though the woman at the center of the story wants no part of it, Kelly and Pogrebin published her name anyway (in their book, albeit not in the Times). “You’re kind of directing attention at a victim and she’s gonna be besieged,” Pogrebin said on the radio show, in explaining why the Times piece left the name out. “Even if people can ultimately find her name, it’s not necessarily important to make it easier for them to do so.” Oh, so publishing her name in a book does not constitute making it too easy for people to find this private citizen? It’s a separate but serious scandal. This woman has been made a public figure in a national story without her consent. Even if she were the victim of sexual misconduct, the Times would ordinarily take steps to protect her identity. Yet she has made no claim along these lines, and Pogrebin and Kelly outed her anyway. Is there no respect for a woman’s privacy? Is every woman in America to think of herself as potential collateral damage should she ever cross paths with any Republican whom Times reporters later tried to take down?

    In her WMAL interview this morning, Pogrebin repeatedly refers to the woman as a “victim.” This word choice is instructive about Pogrebin’s thought process. Calling her a victim would be begging the question if the woman claimed this status for herself. She would then be only an alleged victim. But she isn’t even that. She has made no claim to be a victim, yet Pogrebin describes her as one anyway. This is a case of a reporter overriding her reporting with her opinion. Pogrebin then impugns the woman by saying she was so drunk that her memory can’t be trusted. She also says that “everyone” at the party was massively drunk and that their memories are therefore unreliable.

    Does she hear herself talking? If this is true, it means Max Stier was also drunk and his memories also can’t be trusted. (Someone should ask Pogrebin whether she was present at this party about which she knows so much.) By what journalistic standard does a reporter discount what is said by the person with the most direct and relevant experience of a matter — the woman in question at the Yale party — in favor of a drunken bystander? If both the woman and Stier were drunk, why is his memory more credible than hers? If something like this had actually happened to her, wouldn’t she be more likely than anyone else to remember it? Maybe Stier is remembering a different party. Maybe he’s remembering a different guy. Maybe he made it up.

    It's amazing to me, given the above FACTS that ANYONE would by into this total bullshit of a fairy tale..

    But there go Democrats, including most everyone here, who buys into this bullshit hook, line and sinker...

    Is there not a shred of decency here???

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moreover, if Stier saw this behavior at a party at which others were present, why is no one else backing him up? After a year of reporting, involving members of her own college class, Pogrebin has failed to locate any others to corroborate what Stier is saying. What she and Kelly have done instead is to whip up a smokescreen of random hearsay and vague allegations of bad behavior unconnected to Kavanaugh in any way, such as Ramirez’s mother’s recollection that her daughter once said “Something happened at Yale.” Pogrebin and Kelly call all of this “corroboration” of the Ramirez allegation (never mind the lack of contemporaneous hard evidence). This is outlandishly bad journalism. Something happened at Yale — that’s it, that is absolutely all Ramirez’s mother heard over the course of 35 years — somehow backs up this story? Here is the way the Pogrebin-Kelly piece overplays this: “At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge.” Shamefully misleading, as Byron York has explained.

    "Something happened at Yale

    THAT third person hearsay is what constitutes "PROOF" in the Dumbocrat world...

    It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetically sad..

    This is your Democrat Party, people..

    How can anyone NOT be disgusted by this?

    Oh, that's right..

    Party Slavery...

    THAT explains it..

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    That brings up a related question: Has Stier ever actually told this story under penalty of perjury? He seems to have carefully avoided doing so. Pogrebin and Kelly casually report that he contacted the FBI and multiple senators with the tale. That isn’t exactly what the Washington Post says, in explaining why it didn’t print Stier’s story last year: “As the FBI was wrapping up its investigation, intermediaries working on behalf of Stier delivered his account to agency officials.” (Emphasis mine.) Oh? Stier also talked to Delaware senator Chris Coons. a Democrat. The two are apparently acquaintances. Assuming Coons didn’t swear him in before they chatted, Stier would probably not have been speaking under penalty of perjury. Stier apparently kept himself at one remove from the FBI, to whose agents making a false statement would be a crime. The Post again: “Stier seemed optimistic he would ultimately be able to relay his information to the FBI by ‘reaching out through other means,’ Coons said.”

    So, this Dumbocrat Clinton sycophant who had it out for Justice Kavanaugh never told his fairy tale under oath..

    "Gee!! I WONDER WHY THAT IS!!!"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

    :eyeroll:

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pogrebin reveals her approach to fact in the final moments of the interview. Of the woman at the party, she says, “Remember that she was incredibly drunk at that party as was everyone. And so I think we’re talking about memory here as really kind of a questionable issue. There are plenty of things that are conceivable that could happen when people are too drunk to remember them.” So the standard here is not whether something is true, it’s whether it’s “conceivable.” If a story is “of a piece with a kind of behavior,” even if such behavior is itself not established, and if a story is “conceivable” when filtered through that confirmation bias, and even if it’s undercut by the person the story supposedly happened to, and even if the person telling the story was “incredibly drunk,” you just go with it anyway. Let’s hear it for the New York Times, home of All the News That Fits the Narrative.

    And there is your Democrat Leftist Media..

    All the News That Fits the Narrative.

    And what is so sad and pathetic is ya'all buy into their bullshit day in and day out..

    And yet, when you have an OFFICIAL STATEMENT SOURCED AND DOCUMENTED from THE head official..

    You whine and cry that it's fake news...

    Can't ya'all see how so far over the deep end ya'all have gone???

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fox News Poll: Biden at new low in Democratic primary race
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-biden-at-new-low-in-democratic-primary-race

    Welp, it's just as I predicted..

    Electability has 29% of the vote...

    Party Purity has 59% of the vote...

    It's clear that, just as I said it would, Party Purity will win the Democrat Primary...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Soft-on-Crime Democrats Are Tough on ‘Gun Violence’
    By embracing the magical thinking behind gun control, the

    Democrats remind us they would rather punish society and label law-abiding citizens wrongdoers than confront the criminal class.
    https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/17/why-soft-on-crime-democrats-are-tough-on-gun-violence/

    And there it is in a nutshell..

    Democrats have ALWAYS been pro criminal...

    Now they are confronted with the consequences of that Pro Criminal status..

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    At their third primary debate, nearly all of the Democratic presidential contenders offered full-throated support for gun control. In the very recent past, gun control measures bowed to prudence by respecting the rights and expectations of law-abiding gun owners—even the Clinton “assault weapons ban” grandfathered weapons and magazines manufactured and purchased before the ban took effect.

    Now, however, the rhetoric has shifted and become even more radical and uncompromising.

    For example, supposed moderate Joe Biden said, “Over 90 percent of the American people think we have to get assault weapons off the street—period. And we have to get buybacks and get them out of their basements.” Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said we should “start” with a gun buyback aimed at assault weapons. Former U.S. Representative Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) took things further: “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”

    He’s so proud of himself that he put his quote on a t-shirt.

    History will repeat itself..

    Democrats support for unfair and irrational gun control in the past lost them control of the levers of power for a good long while..

    Democrats are repeating the same exact mistakes again which will result, once again, in their banishment from power..

    NO AMERICAN IN THE MIDDLE OR THE RIGHT WILL SUPPORT GUN CONFISCATION...

    It's really THAT simple..

    Democrats are insuring that they will be un-electable..

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    At first glance, these appear to be tough statements by Democrats who want to tackle the problem of mass shootings. Everyone is frustrated by these costly and random crimes. But these high profile shootings are not increasing, and their rarity is obscured by disproportionate media coverage.

    In reality, rifles of all kinds are used in comparatively few homicides, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report: 403 of 15,000 killings in 2017, the most recent year of reported statistics. This is a mercifully rare crime, considering that there are at least 8 million so-called assault weapons in circulation. By contrast, handguns were involved in 7,032 homicides and knives in 1,591.

    The Democrats’ emphasis on gun control shifts the focus away from other dimensions of violent crime. The vast majority of so-called gun violence is just another type of violence, including the continuous train of atrocities committed primarily by young black men and other minorities in our demoralized inner cities.

    To point out the obvious?—that murder is bad whether committed with a gun or not, whether the killer is white or black, and whether it happens to a lot of people at once or one at a time?—is to be shouted down as a “racist” and a “fascist.”

    The rhetoric of gun control to combat “gun violence” obscures the moral dimension of these crimes by focusing on the tool and averting attention from who is committing crimes and how often. These are not the actions of the average gun owners that Democrats are intent on punishing.

    Almost twice as many murders are committed by feet and hands than are committed by rifles, including the non-existent "assault rifle"...

    This is the EXACT problem with the Dumbocrat's position..

    It's based on NOTHING but hysterical emotionalism...

    Proof??

    "To be clear, you should keep your AR-15s. If you purchased that AR-15, if you own it, keep it. Continue to use it responsibly. If you own a gun, keep that gun. Nobody wants to take it away from you — at least I don’t want to do that."
    -Beto, Apr 2018

    "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore!"
    -Beto, Sep 2019

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww righty... I am off for the night..

    I'll give ya'all a chance to catch up and we can start again in the morning. :D

  110. [110] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    I am all in for banning specific makes of firearms! Look up the damn specs yourself, you obviously visit their makers websites when you masturbate, so I am sure you know them! I realize that the problem with banning these semi-automatic rifles is that gunmakers need only tweak their designs just a little to avoid fitting the definition for one of the banned weapons — and this is a problem.

    Here’s a admission for you, I don’t have all the answers to this! I cannot say the best way to prevent gun deaths because I don’t know all the details. I know that if these weapons were not available, 30 people could not be killed in under 2 minutes. Unlike you, who has stated on here that these deaths by gun violence should be viewed by the American public as “acceptable losses” under the 2nd Amendment, I do not accept that my right to own a gun should allow for unspeakable carnage to occur. I admit it....I do not know the best way to get guns out of the hands of people when would do harm to others with them! Happy now? But unlike your coward ass, I am not willing to do NOTHING and just sit back and watch people be killed so fucktards like yourself can overcompensate for the shortcomings God gave you! Why should “innocent gun owners” be punished for the sins of others? Boo-friggin-hoo! You aren’t being punished for those that have committed gun violence, trust us, that would be far worse than you could imagine. That said, you are being asked to sacrifice a little in order to make it more difficult for these acts of gun violence from occurring!

    If you actually care about lowering gun violence deaths in this country, why don’t you start by demanding Congress revoke the Dickey Act that prevents gun violence from being studied by the CDC?!? Science has a way of wrecking most of your political views, I realize, but it is a good start. You often point out how gun violence has dropped, but you ignore the various laws that were passed that helped to cause the drops in deaths.

    And frack your statistics on completely unrelated causes of death! I know you believe that they make a strong argument, but they are unrelated and therefore aren’t forth anyone’s time! You want to fight childhood obesity — good for you — but that’s a topic for a different day!

    Michale, I do not know if banning semi-automatic rifles that can easily be altered to act like automatic rifles will end mass shootings. I do not have all the answers like you obviously do. I do know that doing nothing isn’t going to help the problem. Your refusal to accept any small steps to lessen the likelihood of gun violence just leaves us with the drastic measures to insure it ends. If one day they do come for your guns, just know you had plenty of chances to prevent that from ever happening, but you refused!

  111. [111] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [39],

    Thank you for jumping in and responding to his utter stupidity in my absence! Couldn’t have said it better, myself. You, as always, are a gem!

    dsws [46]

    It's a regional difference whether "coke" means Coca-Cola product specifically or soda in general.

    As someone who grew up in the Deep South, allow me to respond to this. Yes, “coke” is often used to generally describe “soft drinks”...the same way “pop” and “soda” does in other regions. However, when you order a “Coke” at a dinner, you are always asking for Coca-Cola! If you ask for a Coke, they will always ask you, “Is Pepsi OK?” if they do not carry Coke products! There is a difference. You might ask a friend if they want to stop and get a coke, but when you stop no one asks the friend going into the gas station to grab them a “coke” if they want a Diet Sprite! Brand names still matter.

  112. [112] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    And Aleve is interchangable with Ibuprofen..

    As I said.. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows this to be factually accurate..

    And your medical degree was from Trump University, no doubt! By all means, you go ahead after your surgery and where your doctor told you that you could take up to 8 Aleve to help with the pain, you choose to substitute ibuprofen! The two are “interchangeable”, correct?!?! And as the ibuprofen starts reacting with your other pain medication to eat the lining of your stomach and you are rushed to the hospital in unspeakable pain, maybe if you repeat,

    ”Aleve is interchangable with Ibuprofen... Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows this to be factually accurate!”

    it will take your mind off of all of the blood you’ll be vomiting up!!!

    Thanks for this one! It’ll make your posts claiming to be the only person who bases their posts on FACTS SOOOOO much more enjoyable to shut down!

  113. [113] 
    dsws wrote:

    [50]Kick
    Brand names by definition are not generic.

    This kind of semantics is not useful. Many words in English are derived from Brand names. The brand name Kleenex is not generic, by definition. The generic English word kleenex is about a million times more common in actual use.

    The context is that Michale was talking about the use of "AK-47" and "Kalashnikov" in news coverage and political discourse. It's an empirical question to what extent the terms are used generically, and to what extent they're used as specific brand names. My guess is that they usually refer either to the specific make and model, or to equivalent firearms made to the same specs as off-patent models. But I acknowledge that it's just a guess.

  114. [114] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i know ibuprofen and naproxen are slightly different, but unless you're under 12 years old or are at risk for circulatory problems, those differences are negligible.

  115. [115] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22,

    While Ibuprofen and naproxen sodium may be used to treat many of the same conditions, they are very different substances.

    If you notice, in my example the ibuprofen combined with other medicines were what caused the deterioration of the stomach’s lining, not the ibuprofen by itself. Yes, in most cases you can substitute one for the other when treating yourself, but they should never be substituted for one another when following a doctor’s prescription for treatment.

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    As someone who grew up in the Deep South, allow me to respond to this. Yes, “coke” is often used to generally describe “soft drinks”...the same way “pop” and “soda” does in other regions. However, when you order a “Coke” at a dinner, you are always asking for Coca-Cola!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

    So, let me understand this..

    If you order a "coke" any time except at dinner, it's a generic soda..

    But if you order it at "dinner", then it's ALWAYS Coca Cola..

    Do you realize how utterly moronic you sound??

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    113

    This kind of semantics is not useful.

    *laughs* It's not semantics!

    Many words in English are derived from Brand names. The brand name Kleenex is not generic, by definition. The generic English word kleenex is about a million times more common in actual use.

    So what? Millions of people are misidentifying similar products. Is it too hard to understand the concept that there is no generic English word "kleenex"? This is because the word "Kleenex" is a registered trademarked word that is owned by Kimberly-Clark. I understand that people call other brands that aren't "Kleenex" by the name "Kleenex" in the same way they mistakenly refer to an AR variant as an "AR-15." It's trademark law.

    Look it up in multiple dictionaries; "Kleenex" is a trademark that people use for all kinds of other brand names and/or generic tissues. Look it up. Let me know if you find the word "kleenex" in the dictionary.

    The context is that Michale was talking about the use of "AK-47" and "Kalashnikov" in news coverage and political discourse. It's an empirical question to what extent the terms are used generically, and to what extent they're used as specific brand names. My guess is that they usually refer either to the specific make and model, or to equivalent firearms made to the same specs as off-patent models. But I acknowledge that it's just a guess.

    His overall "theme" is that certain guns can't really be banned because they would be impossible to identify, and he claimed that "AR-15" and "AK-47" are both generic terms for semi-automatic weapons. This is bollocks since both of these terms are trademarked and also because an "AK-47" by trademarked name/definition is a fully automatic weapon... "Avtomat" is Russian for automatic.

    The point is that it isn't difficult for a state jurisdiction or the federal government to ban particular firearms simply because the public has decided to use a trademarked name to describe multiple different brand names of firearms. However, AR-15 and AK-47 are both trademarked and therefore already defined by their manufacturers and under trademark law. Other manufacturers who produce "AR variants" and "AK variants" have to give them identifiable names also... so any state jurisdiction or the federal government would have no problem whatsoever making long lists of those firearms that would be banned by statute, and an "assault weapon" is whatever a jurisdiction of law defines it to be. It's just that simple, and here is a link to those definitions of multiple state jurisdictions that are conveniently kept by the ATF:

    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/state-laws-and-published-ordinances-firearms-33rd-edition

    California's statutes are loaded -- no pun intended -- with legal definitions regarding types of banned firearms. :)

  118. [118] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, let me understand this..

    If you order a "coke" any time except at dinner, it's a generic soda..

    But if you order it at "dinner", then it's ALWAYS Coca Cola..

    Do you realize how utterly moronic you sound??

    Yeah, I do, because that is NOT what I was saying! It doesn’t matter if it is breakfast, brunch, lunch, dinner, supper, or late night munchie time... anytime you are actually ordering your drink and you say “Coke”, whoever you are ordering from will make sure you meant Coca-Cola and will ask “Is Pepsi OK?” if they only carry Pepsi products. Not many fast food or restaurants carry both Coke and Pepsi products on their menus.

    Love that you ignored commenting on getting your FACTS all wrong! I guess you just plan to Aleve that alone!

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    111|118

    Thank you for jumping in and responding to his utter stupidity in my absence! Couldn’t have said it better, myself. You, as always, are a gem!

    *I blush* ;)

    Mike is pure dumb effing ignorant if he believes the utter asinine bullshit that firearms can't be successfully define. It's like he has no clue whatsoever that multiple jurisdictions across the country have already been there and done that. An "assault weapon" is whatever a jurisdiction defines it to be, and there are "squints" all across America who get paid to define lots of things. Indeed, there is nothing that can't be defined; it's basic law at its finest. :)

    Yeah, I do, because that is NOT what I was saying! It doesn’t matter if it is breakfast, brunch, lunch, dinner, supper, or late night munchie time... anytime you are actually ordering your drink and you say “Coke”, whoever you are ordering from will make sure you meant Coca-Cola and will ask “Is Pepsi OK?” if they only carry Pepsi products. Not many fast food or restaurants carry both Coke and Pepsi products on their menus.

    Exactly right! Also, Pepsi/Frito-Lay (chips) owned multiple restaurants and for obvious reasons exclusively served their own product: Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken/KFC, California Pizza Kitchen, etc.

    No Coke, Pepsi! No fries, chip! ~ Saturday Night Live

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

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    118

    Love that you ignored commenting on getting your FACTS all wrong! I guess you just plan to Aleve that alone!

    Aleve that alone... Heh!

    Mike's admission of less than "two brain cells to rub together" is again duly noted. :)

Comments for this article are closed.