Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:14 AM ET, 01/15/2011

Open Thread

By Greg Sargent

How much longer will the rest of the world callously turn a blind eye to the epic suffering being endured by America's persecuted minority of conservative personalities with millions of dollars and worshipful national followings?

By Greg Sargent  | January 15, 2011; 9:14 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Sunday Open Thread

Comments

Always good to start the day with a :lol:. Thanks, Greg.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 15, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

Do you agree with your fellow Conservatives here that national child labor laws are unconstitutional?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 9:20 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

I am curious....is there any conceivable law that you think would be a good law, but which you think would be unconstitutional?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 9:26 AM | Report abuse

You mean like this guy?

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim. He's the latest in a never-ending parade of victims brought about by the unfairness of America...this guy clearly understands he's getting all the attention and he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."

Rush Limbaugh

Posted by: lmsinca | January 15, 2011 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Wow so the filth want to bring back the sweatshops and put kids to work.

Conservatives are morally grotesque

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 9:29 AM | Report abuse

cao:

""Wow so the filth want to bring back the sweatshops and put kids to work.""

Who does? And what makes you think they do?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 9:33 AM | Report abuse

""Wow so the filth want to bring back the sweatshops and put kids to work."" A vast, untapped resource. We should offer tax breaks to companies that hire kids. But only if they're American kids. The tax breaks for hiring Pakistani kids really needs to stop.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 15, 2011 9:36 AM | Report abuse

I can't help but notice that our esteemed Conservative Constitutional scholar has trundled off just when we are discussing how Conservatives seek to dismantle national worker protection laws. How convenient.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 9:38 AM | Report abuse


The Urban Rubes love to trash the whole Constitution, using the justification that there are certain provisions which they don't like.

However, usually the Urban Rubes fail to understand or mention that the parts they don't like have already been repealed long ago.


For instance, the slave trade appears to still be an issue. It was settled in the 1700s, that the slave trade would end in the early 1800s.


The 13th and 15th Amendment REPEALED other provisions which the URBAN RUBES still cite to justify their belief that the Constitution is "stained" or has "birth defects."


I find these statements offensive. Anyone who says such things I consider to be UNAMERICAN. Plain and simple.

Again, the provisions the Urban Rubes don't like have already been REPEALED.


Then you have people like Ezra Klein who have stated that because the Constitution is over 100 years old, the Urban Rubes do NOT understand it, so therefore it should have no force anymore.


I never heard such logic - because the Urban Rubes do not understand something, because it does not fit into their liberal misguided thinking, therefore the LAW has no force.

That idea is also UnAmerican.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim. He's the latest in a never-ending parade of victims brought about by the unfairness of America...this guy clearly understands he's getting all the attention and he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."

Rush Limbaugh

Posted by: lmsinca | January 15, 2011 9:27 AM | Report abuse

And that vile creature is the de facto leader of the Republican Party and Conservatism in the United States.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 9:41 AM | Report abuse

This is what we can do:


1) Take a look at some of the video clips from left wing liberals - the violent speech is unbelievable. That Ed show (not the bowling alley lawyer) - he is out-of-bounds.

I guess you-tube would be the place for this - these comments are less well-known because their ratings are so low, near zero.


2) Perhaps the government should provide more funds for the mentally ill. Glaring in all of this is the actions of the Community College - which did not SOLVE anything - all they did was move the problem to the Safeway parking lot.


Had the college (which may be part of the county government) made sure to provide adequate treatment, perhaps the violence could have been averted. The liberals are obviously running this college (as can be seen from the interviews.)


3) The William Ayers liberal program which funded the high school of the suspect has to be investigated. Very strange connection there. In addition, there is a report that Obama was funding the high school as well - when Obama was on the board of a non-profit dedicated to helping far-left causes.


4) IF THERE WAS ONE MORE GUN AT THIS EVENT, there would have been less killing. If several people in the crowd had guns in that parking lot, the violence would have been substantially less.


The liberals have to get their minds around the fact that they can NEVER get rid of ALL guns, there will ALWAYS be illegal guns on the street.


Our ONLY chance is to have MORE GUNS in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

That is the SOLUTION -

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 9:43 AM | Report abuse


The Constitution INCLUDES these things called "checks and balances." The purpose of these things - is to PREVENT people like the liberals from destroying our country.

Although the liberals consider themselves superior, they appear unable to grasp this simple concept. For instance, liberals show their disrespect for Constitutional principles such as "checks and balances" by chanting certain words like "reconciliation."

Now, these actions mimic the actions of gorillas - or tribal chanting to build support in the community for actions which the more advanced people in the tribe believe to be unwise or immoral.

For instance, liberals often appear to believe that the Bill of Rights only has 8 Amendments. The liberals love to ignore the Amendments which they don't like, while they scream and chant about the meaning of certain phrases in the Amendments they do like. It is all tribal.

Anyway I would like to see the liberals respect the 2nd and 10th Amendments. That would settle a great deal in this nation.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 9:46 AM | Report abuse

I can't help but notice that our esteemed Conservative Constitutional scholar has trundled off just when we are discussing how Conservatives seek to dismantle national worker protection laws. How convenient.

==

Yeah to play wee-wee with a little girl

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 9:49 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne

I just ignore Limbaugh and gave up linking his comments here last year but after conservatives got so exercised about Krugman, I figured a comparison was in order.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 15, 2011 9:51 AM | Report abuse

The most important issue is the Economy - and Obama is standing in the way of important economic growth.

Obama's health care plan is a DRAG on hiring.

Obama's stimulus was a waste of money - diverted to democratic special interests - and actually did little to create jobs. Obama is a complete failure on every front.

LIBERALS - I challenge you to look back and see what Obama was saying in 2008. ON almost every issue, Obama has NOT done what he said, or failed miserably in some horrible respect.

Obama can't even handle a mass murder properly without it turning into a political rally with union-style t-shirts.


_______________________________

Everyone

Article ONE grants Congress the power over interstate commerce.

The Courts have ruled that manufacturing for goods intended for interstate commerce falls under the jurisdiction of Congress.


Therefore, Article ONE grants Congress the power to regulate child labor.


.

____________________


Unbelievable that the liberals are trying to have a conversation about the Consitution - and they can't even keep their Articles straight.

And I don't mean grammar Articles.

Clearly, the democrats have made a cottage-industry out of COMPLETE MISCHARACTERIZING and LYING about the positions of the Republicans.

Just today, the liberals have been LYING about the Republicans' position on the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare and child labor laws passed in the 1800s.


GROSS DISRESPECT FOR DEMOCRACY ITSELF - if you lie about the positions of the other side.

Clearly, the democrats do not believe that they can win an HONEST DISCUSSION. So lies are the way they go.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 9:51 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne: ""I can't help but notice that our esteemed Conservative Constitutional scholar has trundled off just when we are discussing how Conservatives seek to dismantle national worker protection laws. How convenient."" Now, now.

I'm sure he's just spending some time with his mon... **children**.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 15, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Bernie (brought forward):

""What establishes or measures that is whether they reject it.""

We've had this discussion before. You are wrong. They may desire (the pretense of) free medical care while at the same time dislike the actual service they get. This is precisely the case at hand in the UK. There is a near constant demand for reform and change within the NHS, except for the one thing that might actually fix the problems...the method by which the service is paid for. And it is no surprise, for two reasons. First, people are attracted to the notion that they are getting something for free, even if it isn't true. Second, they have no familiarity with any other system, and naturally fear change. Especially when their only acquaintance with another system, the US, is fraught with misconceptions about the streets being littered with dying people unable to get any medical care. (Yes, there are people in the UK who do believe this is true.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of which, the sun is out, and it threatens to go above freezing, so... let's hop on the scooter and get some Saturday stuff done.

Latah!
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 15, 2011 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Cao is some example

What Cao has done is move to Southeast Asia in order to TAKE ADVANTAGE of the child labor laws.

And I just wonder what Cao is hiring the little boys for.

____________________________


HOWEVER, THE GREATER POINT IS CLINTON'S FREE TRADE DEALS.


The liberals on this blog CLAIM they want to protect children through child labor laws.

HOWEVER, did Clinton protect children in the FREE TRADE DEALS ??? ALL OF CLINTON'S FREE TRADE DEALS provide little or ZERO protection for children in the goods brought into the US under these HORRIBLE LIBERAL TRADE DEALS.


Hillary used to be on the Board of WAL MART.

What are THEY doing about child labor???

Also, the BIG BANKS which Obama has been so cozy to - and HILLARY TOOK SO MUCH MONEY FROM IN HER THREE CAMPAIGN CASH ORGIES,


Those banks are FINANCING the factories and providing FIANCING TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN GOODS PRODUCED BY CHILD LABOR.

The LIBERALS HAVE SOME NERVE - after all the DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE to create this nightmare of system we have now.


The liberals are just a bunch of worthless, know-nothing, full-of-it creepy URBAN RUBES.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 9:56 AM | Report abuse

If WWII hadn't interrupted the spread of labor organization every employee in the US would have ended up belonging to a union and had bargaining power, and the middle class would have been a permanent fixture of American life, not some expermemt that was ended after a few decades to return to the historical norm of serfdom that conservatives want.

It would be a vastly different country and a vastly better one, with, one hopes, not a single god damn billionaire and employees, not shareholders, being the beneficiaries of their own labor.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Haha I liked that part about "well-adjusted.".

Frankly the very last thing anyone would guess about QB, the guy who exudes sarcasm, derision, snark, and who can't do a post that isn't an attack.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 10:01 AM | Report abuse

jprestonian in response to your ignorance on full display at 9:52 AM


Bill Clinton and the liberals are the ones who pushed through the FREE TRADE DEALS on a fast-track through Congress.

Those Free Trade deals did more to HARM child protection than ANYTHING ELSE in the history of mankind.


The liberals are a complete joke on this issue. Clinton's Free Trade provided little or ZERO PROTECTIONS in:


1) Child labor laws

2) Consumer safety

3) Consumer product safety - in terms of toxic materials used in products intended for children

4) Worker safety at factories

5) Environmental protections - children have to breath that air and drink that water.


Clinton's Free Trade deals DISMANTLED the protections we had in place


What are you ego-driven LIBERALS TALKING ABOUT???


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of which, the sun is out, and it threatens to go above freezing

==

88 Fahrenheit today.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 10:03 AM | Report abuse

"Second, they have no familiarity with any other system, and naturally fear change.'

This is my operating caricature of what it means to be conservative.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Love the intro or this one, Greg.

Those poor persecuted conservatives, having to WAIT for everything they want sometimes

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Cao is some example

What Cao has done is move to Southeast Asia in order to TAKE ADVANTAGE of the child labor laws.

And I just wonder what Cao is hiring the little boys for.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of child labor laws, I am reminded of my trip to Vietnam. Every morning we would go across the street from our hotel in Ho Chi Minh, to a little outdoor diner for breakfast. And every morning this same little boy, 5 or 6 yrs old, would come to our table and try to sell us postcards and trinkets. His mother was always standing across the street as he the boy peddled his wares to the tourists. Then one morning the boy came by, but this time he had a bruised up eye and an arm in a sling, and his mother was accompanying him, still trying to sell his stuff. We asked what happened. She told us that the day before, as the boy was working, he got hit by a motorcycle on the side of the road.

I guess they don't have sick leave laws in Vietnam. At least not for child workers.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 10:20 AM | Report abuse

shrnik:

""This is my operating caricature of what it means to be conservative.""

Well, then, I guess everyone is a conservative at some level.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I don't see why anyone would find a conversation with Cao remotely useful - he is clearly a communist - has moved to Vietnam

And seriously folks - what kind of male person moves to Southeast Asia -

AND FOR WHAT???


Seriously, this Cao person has to be deranged - and moving out of the US to get out of the jurisdiction of certain laws in the US.


I would be concerned about this guy Cao. Sorry.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 10:24 AM | Report abuse

WARNING


None of us know Kevin.

And no one has looked at his code closely.


FAIR WARNING - if you install code from an unknown person on your computer, you do know if that code also contains code which will allow your credit card numbers to get out.


In addition, code can have lines in it which allow a person to look at ALL all your files on your computer.


FAIR WARNING.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Conservative that is, except when it comes to language like "well regulated" which conservatives have determined means absolutely nothing. Then there is the construction of corporate person-hood, a favorite PL saw.

You see, after many weeks of careful study and debate, unlimited, anonymous free corporate political speech (using money as a proxy) was written right into the First Amendment by the framers of the Constitution, we all get that.

But since that never happened, courts decided that corporations have rights akin to American citizens if those rights are an essential aspect of the existence of a corporate entity (to hold debt, tort liability, make contracts, etc.).

More recently, pouring anonymous money into political campaigns became essential to corporate and also yes, AFSCME and SEIU survival. So presto, the First Amendment was construed to confer on 501(c) entities the right to unlimited anonymous political donations. It is all about "free" speech.

Like freedom, free markets are not free and neither is speech. The more money you have, the freer you become, the markets free up for you (the invisible hand does it, but the hand has to get paid) and the more of a right you have to speak. That is what it says right there in the Constitution. It doesn't really, in fact, some might say the framers would be appalled at the notion. On the other hand, the 3/5 clause might have had something to do with it.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Hey Greg, I get the joke, but your were speaking of George Soros right? Oh that's right, he's a liberal millionaire "with millions of dollars and worshipful national followings."

Let's keep it "fair and balanced". Oh, I forgot, this blog's balance is heavy criticism of the right balanced with heavy support of the left.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Scott, indeed, we all are conservatives at some level, quite true. Our ego defense mechanisms are there for a reason, being well defended is the price we have to pay for being imaginative.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

What would wing nut nation do without George Soros? He get's trotted out so much he must have a million dollar budget for fetlock Co Flex.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Palin and Soros should get together for a new reality show ... perhaps call it "The Obsessions"

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 15, 2011 10:40 AM | Report abuse

or more appropriately ... The Right Obseesions

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 15, 2011 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Shrink, have ever considered that in virtually all cultures and societies there are "big dogs" that are free-er than everyone else. In the USSR, it was the party bosses, in 19th century America it was successful industrialists, etc. There are always going to be human beings who want to dominate and control other human beings based on whatever ideas they believe to be the best that they've locked in their heads. You guys go after one another from whatever points of view that you've managed to lock into your brains that are not likely to ever change no matter what facts, figures or evidence is produced. But then it can be entertaining to watch you all try.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 10:45 AM | Report abuse

actuator: ""speaking of George Soros right?""

What if someone threw a pity party for Soros, and no one knew about it, y'mean?

[looks around, blinks rapidly]
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 15, 2011 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if liberals wander into right leaning blogs and complain about conservative bias? Just kidding, of course they do. People just don't want to accept what the internet did to journalism: opinion, analysis, opinion, analysis and more opinion and also some facts now and then, draped with opinion and analysis.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 10:47 AM | Report abuse

shrink2: ""I wonder if liberals wander into right leaning blogs and complain about conservative bias? Just kidding, of course they do.""

Perhaps.

I don't look around for conservative blogs that have open commenting, but at one time, I did. Back then, it was rare that they would even have comments, and the ones that did were pretty religious in their zeal to purge any commentary not in line with the blogger's ideology.

Have things changed?
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 15, 2011 10:51 AM | Report abuse

And in countries like here where education is esteemed and teachers get good pay you get kids who LIKE going to school.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 10:10 AM
----------

"good pay" being the equivalent of $16 a year. I wonder if the age limit for young girls being sold into bondage in a Vietnamese brothel is still 7. Cao would probably be more of an authority on the boys. But the leper colonies are among the finest in the world.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Wasn't it the post WWII period that established the US as the pre-eminent country on the planet? Wasn't it this period that established a strong middle class, reduced income disparity, strong New Deal safety nets, healthy labor movement, increased workplace safety?

What is "conservative" about dismantling that success?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 15, 2011 10:52 AM | Report abuse

The Nation owes Jimmy Carter a huge apology. Thanks for lying, President Carter.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 7:43 AM
-------

I'll offer acknowledgment but no apology.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse

shrink:

""What would wing nut nation do without George Soros? He get's trotted out so much he must have a million dollar budget for fetlock Co Flex. ""

Who gets trotted out more...Soros or Limbaugh?

""People just don't want to accept what the internet did to journalism: opinion, analysis, opinion, analysis and more opinion and also some facts now and then, draped with opinion and analysis.""

I don't mind so much the fact of liberal bias, especially at places like this. What I find risible is the claim by some of the biggest practitioners that they are being perfectly objective and fair. (Ask Greg...I'm sure he thinks his analysis is objective and fair. I'd ask him, but he refuses to respond to anyone who is a conservative...d'oh!)

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 10:55 AM | Report abuse

wow, the troll hunter is slick. its like they're not even there...

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 15, 2011 10:56 AM | Report abuse

brigade writes
""What I find risible is the claim by some of the biggest practitioners that they are being perfectly objective and fair.""

On the contrary, both Sargent & Klein admit they approach the issues with a particular bias. Where the discussion could be interesting is in identifying where the bias lies & how it affects their posts. Surely you aren't under the impression that this 'open thread' is intended as an unbiased, straightforward question? Its snark, perhaps even a cheap shot. What's perhaps most amusing is the gripe about the bias, then trotting out george soros as though the media hangs on his every twit or facebook post. I don't think anybody really cares what Soros says, other than being happy that he spends his money on moveon & other groups.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 15, 2011 11:04 AM | Report abuse

|hi:jprestonian|, here is an example...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/the_real_issue_in_arizona_schi.html#comments


|hi:ScottC3|
What I find risible is the claim by some of the biggest practitioners that they are being perfectly objective and fair.

This comes with the territory, if you are slinging opinion for a living, you have to hold out the idea that your opinions are correct and thus the objective. Being objective obviates the notion of being fair, facts are facts, that is what we always hear.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 11:06 AM | Report abuse

shrink wrote,
"Conservative that is, except when it comes to language like "well regulated" which conservatives have determined means absolutely nothing."
-------

In your humble opinion, is it the "well regulated militia" or "the people" whose right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Is there something in the language that leads you to believe that if a particular militia was not "well regulated" (by whatever standard) or some individual (male or female) did not at present actually belong to a militia, then the people's right to keep and bear could be infringed or abolished? Please, no quotes from patriots like Madison, Jefferson or caothien9; I just want your own opinion.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 11:07 AM | Report abuse

bsimon:

I will respond a bit later. But for now, I'd just note that I am ScottC, not Brigade.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I like to play wee-wee with a little boys.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 9:49 AM
-------

We know. We know.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Why should anyone be happy that Soros "...spends his money on moveon & other groups." There are much better uses of his $.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Now you know why nobody responds to 37th or Brigade, bsimon.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Thank you for highlighting the persecution and suffering of these poor multimillionaires.

When someone criticizes something they say, an angel loses it's wings.

It's the biggest problem in America today.

Posted by: ANDYO1 | January 15, 2011 11:11 AM | Report abuse

brigade writes
""What I find risible is the claim by some of the biggest practitioners that they are being perfectly objective and fair.""

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 15, 2011 11:04 AM
---------

You need to lay off the bottle for a day or two. Look and you'll see I didn't make that post. You did the same thing the other day with some nonsense about the red ink in liberal states, and I tried to be charitable by saying I may have made such a post long ago and forgotten about it.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 11:14 AM | Report abuse

|hi:Brigade|

I know, since the militia doesn't exist, the well regulated went away too, it is all in the syntax, intent that is...so throwing out that part leaves us free to decide what was left of the 2nd amendment would or should have meant, had they wrote it that way, even though they didn't. It's cool, no worries.

Look, we know the Constitution says whatever we decide it says. There are no mental health laws in the fourth amendment, there is no corporate "free" speech in the Constitution. I am just laughing at conservatives who style themselves strict constructivists, or whatever the right wing judges call themselves.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Now you know why nobody responds to 37th or Brigade, bsimon.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 11:08 AM
-------

Nobody? What a mental mess. Since he's used Troll Hunter on some of us, that means he (and maybe the equally challenged DDAWD or perhaps his sockpuppet jprestonian) now represents "everybody." Delusions of grandeur? Of course, if I were a 9/11 truther with obvious emotional problems and a telling inability to connect with reality or form rational arguments, I'd probably disengage as well. I could always read Karl Popper and fancy myself an authority on QM.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Shrink, I think the framers of the constitution understood that a disarmed public was at risk from inappropriate government domination. It seems to have turned out that in today's world the law abiding public is more at risk from criminals and crazies. To me that makes private gun ownership by sane, law abiding citizens even more important since criminals aren't going obey gun laws anyway.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Greg wrote,
"How much longer will the rest of the world callously turn a blind eye to the epic suffering being endured by America's persecuted minority of conservative personalities with millions of dollars and worshipful national followings?"
-------

Are liberals really so unconscious that they don't realize money can't buy the kind of publicity they provide? A week from now, few will remember the names of any of the Tucson victims aside from Gabby Giffords. But Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and Rush Limbaugh will still be in the hearts and minds of us all. And they're gaining new fans and listeners every day while the liberal media doesn't convince a single soul of anything he or she didn't already slavishly believe. How many times a day do O'Reilly, Krauthammer, Will, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Thomas, Hannity, et al. mention the likes of Schultz, Olbermann, Krugman, Maddow, Klein, or O'Donnell by name? Yet the conservatives are all libs talk about. They are quite literally obsessed. The conservatives are laughing all the way to the bank.


Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Shrink, I think the framers of the constitution understood that a disarmed public was at risk from inappropriate government domination. It seems to have turned out that in today's world the law abiding public is more at risk from criminals and crazies. To me that makes private gun ownership by sane, law abiding citizens even more important since criminals aren't going obey gun laws anyway.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 11:31 AM
-------

At last, a breath of fresh air, sunshine, and common sense. Even one so liberal as Carl Rowan had this figured out.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 11:37 AM | Report abuse

|hi:actuator|

I'm good, I have guns, probably just because I grew up around them. I shot a .22 competitively as a little kid, rural Minnesota, it was normal, literally. They just don't scare me. If I lived somewhere else (as I have for years at a time) I can live in a disarmed society, but I have not chosen to do that here, not where I live, not with the job I have (some really bad people come to really hate me from time to time, you never know if they are going to get over it...or not). Anyway, my point is that we grow, ignore bits of and use the Constitution to serve us the way we want it to...without amending it.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 11:41 AM | Report abuse

|hi:Brigade

Good one!

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 15, 2011 11:41 AM | Report abuse

" I'd just note that I am ScottC, not Brigade"

whoops! Should've been obvious, of course.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 15, 2011 11:41 AM | Report abuse

""I know, since the militia doesn't exist, the well regulated went away too, it is all in the syntax, intent that is.""

Curiously, perhaps only to me, the word militia appears elsewhere in the constitution, in Article II, where el Presidente is described as CiC of the armed forces, including the militia of the various states. Given that we know the framers didn't use words casually, I've been wondering how the word militia in that context is defined relative to how the word militia in Amendment 2 is defined. It sure sounds like the framers had something specific in mind, in terms of what makes a militia & how the people are defined in it. The 'strict constructionists' seem to actually deconstruct the constitution in order to most easily apply their interpretations to the favored bits & pieces, rather than the document as a whole.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 15, 2011 11:48 AM | Report abuse

""The conservatives are laughing all the way to the bank.""


Nothing is as important as money.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 15, 2011 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"How much longer will the rest of the world callously turn a blind eye to the epic suffering being endured by America's persecuted minority of conservative personalities with millions of dollars and worshipful national followings? '

Greg: You cry for justice on behalf of America's rich gluttons is heartwarming. Reminds me of Ghandi. Or Mandela. Or Paul Revere.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 12:00 PM | Report abuse

""The conservatives are laughing all the way to the bank."

Nothing is as important as money."

That reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFKz-OsUUoY&feature=related

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 15, 2011 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), who is proposing a bill to allow members of Congress to carry guns in the Capitol and D.C., explained today: "Saying guns are the problem is like saying spoons are what make people fat. Maybe we'll need to regulate the size of spoons."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 12:14 PM | Report abuse

|red:clawrence| don't forget to put a pipe (with no space) after the last letter of whatever you want to turn red or yellow.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Just took a break to make a sandwich. As I twisted the bread tie, I realized it was tightening instead of loosening. My wife is ambidextrous and I'm right handed. She had obviously twisted in the opposite direction that I twist.

Question: Do you think I could get a government grant to study the impact of handedness on twist ties and the time lost from twisting in the wrong direction?

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

If you're still looking for Conservatives who think the New Deal should be demolished, here's another one:

"Last week, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) posted a lecture on his YouTube channel where he explains in great detail his views on the Constitution. As part of the lecture, which is essentially a lengthy defense of his radical tenther interpretation of the Constitution, Lee claims that federal child labor laws are unconstitutional"

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/14/lee-child-labor/

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Good Morning guys:

Yeah, not sure how much more of this "epic suffering" this "rethuglikkkcan" can stand.

Nov 2010 elections:
Biggest landslide in the House since 1938.
Biggest landslide in the state legislatures since Davy Crockett wore coonskin diapers.

Meanwhile, Iraq ok, Afghanistan reinforced, Predator drone attacks in Pakistan way up and business at Club Gitmo going strong.

Bush tax rates extended and we even got a payroll tax cut on top of it.

Illinois lame duck legislature raises tax rates by 70%. Nice stimulus plan for the adjacent redstates.

Dem's pushing for more gun control (wake me if a bill get out of committee), which has always been a winning issue for them.

It's tough but I'll endeavor to persevere.
Flower and candy always welcome though.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 15, 2011 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"Anyway, my point is that we grow, ignore bits of and use the Constitution to serve us the way we want it to...without amending it."

Agreed. I don't think anyone can honestly say that in practice, any of us have a right to guns.

As for the interpretation of the 2nd, I think the part of the militia is nothing more than an explanation. Like the other nine, #2 was meant to be an individual right at the time of drafting.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 15, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

I've asked you a number of times why caothien has not been banned, while telling you I don't care to see him banned, for his repeatedly stated mass murder fantasies, vulgarity, perverted personal attackes, etc. Now this:

""Then we would NOT have...."

I am so sloppy editing.

Must go play Wii with my daughter now. (Sadly for fiona, I have a happy and well-adjusted family.)

But bernie should feel better, being able to hold class without me.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 9:25 AM | Report abuse "

_____________________

"I can't help but notice that our esteemed Conservative Constitutional scholar has trundled off just when we are discussing how Conservatives seek to dismantle national worker protection laws. How convenient.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 9:38 AM | Report abuse "

_________________

"I can't help but notice that our esteemed Conservative Constitutional scholar has trundled off just when we are discussing how Conservatives seek to dismantle national worker protection laws. How convenient.

==

Yeah to play wee-wee with a little girl

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 9:49 AM | Report abuse "

This is way, way, way over the line Greg. I happen to have a young daughter who, along with my son, are the most precious things in this world to me and my wife. We rescued her from the life of a throw-away orphan in a country with a government much admired by caothien but not very big on human life and welfare.

I've listened to this vile and hate-consumed piece of filth lash out with every insult and perverted put down in the past couple of months since he crawled up from the sewer. But this is another matter entirely, to come back from spending a couple of hours playing with my daughter -- who's ten feet from me right now -- to see this ghoul's having issued a calumny like this.

caothien9 needs to be banned right now, without further delay. Your credibility and integrity are on the line here, Greg. Are you really going to let your blog be polluted by the comments of someone this abusive and despicable? Really?

You've never answered anyone's questions about why caothien is still allowed to comment here, nor any other questions about your obvious double standards in having banned Bilgeman, jake, and Rainwhoeverheis. But I'm going to paste this demand into every thread I can until you address this outrageous abuse.

Are you really going to allow a sick, perverted hatemonger named caothien accuse another commenter of molesting his own daughter -- just for the perverse fun of it and his own sick amusement?

caothien9, you are so lucky this is an anonymous comment board, that's all I can say for you.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

So has beck asked you to trial-run a new opening for his program and you decided to whack us in the head with it today?? Really??

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | January 15, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

|hi:bsimon| says...
"The 'strict constructionists' seem to actually deconstruct the constitution in order to most easily apply their interpretations to the favored bits & pieces, rather than the document as a whole."

Not to mention finding constructs of whole cloth there between the lines.

Imagine someone in 1783, wondering, what are we going to do with these crazy people wandering the streets? They look dangerous.

The response, fret not, everyone will know that the police powers of the states derived from the fourth and fourteenth amendments, will allow them to pick citizens up without a warrant, even though they are not thought to have committed a crime (though like everyone else they might) and lock them into institutions and forcibly treat them until a judge or a doctor decides they are no longer a menace.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 12:28 PM | Report abuse

REVEALED NEW INFORMATION FROM WIKILEAKS


Buried deep inside the latest release from Wikileaks was GREG SARGENTS list of topics for the next two years:


Greg Sargent THE PLUM LINE


List of Topics for 2011 - 2012

1) Harp on Health Care

2) Sarah Palin

3) Gay Rights

4) Rinse

5) Harp on Health Care

6) Complain about Sarah Palin

7) Gay Rights

8) Rinse

9) Secret money

10) Only the Republicans take secret money, not Obama

11) Harp on Health Care

12) Sarah Palin

13) Gay Rights

14) Rinse

15) Harp on Health Care

16) Complain about Sarah Palin

17) Gay Rights

18) Rinse

19) Secret money

20) Only the Republicans take undisclosed money, not Obama

21) Harp on Health Care

22) Sarah Palin

23) Gay Rights

24) Rinse

25) Harp on Health Care

26) Complain about Sarah Palin

27) Gay Rights

28) Rinse

29) Secret money

30) Only the Republicans take secret, undisclosed money, not Obama

31) Harp on Health Care

32) Sarah Palin

33) Gay Rights

34) Rinse

35) Harp on Health Care

36) Complain about Sarah Palin

37) Gay Rights

38) Rinse

39) Secret money

40) Only the Republicans take money, not Obama

41) Harp on Health Care

42) Sarah Palin

43) Gay Rights

44) Rinse

45) Harp on Health Care

46) Complain about Sarah Palin

47) Gay Rights

48) Rinse

49) Secret money

50) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

51) Harp on Health Care

52) Sarah Palin

53) Gay Rights

54) Rinse

55) Harp on Health Care

56) Complain about Sarah Palin

57) Gay Rights

58) Rinse

59) Secret money

60) Only the Republicans take secret money, not Obama

61) Harp on Health Care

62) Sarah Palin

63) Gay Rights

64) Rinse

65) Harp on Health Care

66) Complain about Sarah Palin

67) Gay Rights

68) Rinse

69) Secret money

70) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

71) Harp on Health Care

72) Sarah Palin

73) Gay Rights

74) Rinse

75) Harp on Health Care

76) Complain about Sarah Palin

77) Gay Rights

78) Rinse

79) Secret money

80) Only the Republicans take money, not Obama

81) Harp on Health Care

82) Sarah Palin

83) Gay Rights

84) Rinse

85) Harp on Health Care

86) Complain about Sarah Palin

87) Gay Rights

88) Rinse

89) Secret money

90) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

91) Harp on Health Care

92) Sarah Palin

93) Gay Rights

94) Rinse

95) Harp on Health Care

96) Complain about Sarah Palin

97) Gay Rights

98) Rinse

99) Secret money

100) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 12:29 PM | Report abuse

FYI:

"Pima county sheriff Clarence Dupnik was among the first to discuss the shooting within the context of Arizona's heated immigration battles. In several television appearances, he characterized the tragedy as a product of hatred and intolerance, telling reporters during one press conference that Arizona has "become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry." Many on the right, including Senator Jon Kyl, were quick to admonish Dupkin for needlessly politicizing a national tragedy.

But, as Care2's Jessica Pieklo argues, the sheriff's contentiously moderate stance on immigration makes him uniquely positioned "to shine a critical light on the fevered political rhetoric that has enveloped his state and this country." While Dupnik has spoken out against Arizona's SB 1070, engendering the goodwill of immigrant rights advcoates, he has also argued that schools should check the immigration statuses of students, a position endorsed by the anti-immigrant right. Given his varied stance on the issues, it's difficult to dismiss his characterization of the tragedy as some kind of party-line pandering. Rather, his statement seems an objective assessment of Arizona's volatile political culture-made all the worse by increasingly fierce immigration debates."

http://www.openleft.com/diary/21403/weekly-diaspora-tucson-shooting-reshapes-explosive-immigration-debate

That reminds me: Has Rep. Giffords father apologized yet to Rush Limbaugh for saying after the shootings that the Tea Party was his daughter's enemy? And Rep. Giffords herself should apologize to Sarah Palin for being so inconvenient and nearly getting assassinated after Palin put a bulls-eye on her head. But Rep. Giffords can't speak yet so that will have to wait. But there is no excuse for Rep. Giffords' father not immediately apologizing to Limbaugh, Palin, the Tea Party, Republicans, and Conservatives generally. Hopefully, this grave injustice will be rectified forthwith so the country can move forward at peace with itself.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Hi WBg,

Re: your Pats/Ex-Pats post a day or 2 ago:

I'm right at that edge in football years, in that I was raised a Western MA, CT River Valley...omg...a Giants fan! (The Pats and AFL were just getting going.) It was wierd, but not a big deal, being a Giants guy all the twenty yrs I was in Boston. It's WAY worse being a Sox fan in the CapDist NYState.

That said, Brady is going to take the mouthy, Jr.College Jetz freakin' apart.

Posted by: tao9 | January 15, 2011 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"Like the other nine, #2 was meant to be an individual right at the time of drafting."

I'm not so sure about that. Do you have some persuasive source (other than the fact that that's what the Supreme Court just said)?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Cool... Dupnik has an Urban Dictionary entry now:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dupnik

Posted by: TominColorado | January 15, 2011 12:33 PM | Report abuse


REVEALED NEW INFORMATION FROM WIKILEAKS


Buried deep inside the latest release from Wikileaks was GREG SARGENTS list of topics for the next two years:


Greg Sargent THE PLUM LINE


List of Topics for 2011 - 2012

1) Harp on Health Care

2) Sarah Palin

3) Gay Rights

4) Rinse

5) Harp on Health Care

6) Complain about Sarah Palin

7) Gay Rights

8) Rinse

9) Secret money

10) Only the Republicans take secret money, not Obama

11) Harp on Health Care

12) Sarah Palin

13) Gay Rights

14) Rinse

15) Harp on Health Care

16) Complain about Sarah Palin

17) Gay Rights

18) Rinse

19) Secret money

20) Only the Republicans take undisclosed money, not Obama

21) Harp on Health Care

22) Sarah Palin

23) Gay Rights

24) Rinse

25) Harp on Health Care

26) Complain about Sarah Palin

27) Gay Rights

28) Rinse

29) Secret money

30) Only the Republicans take secret, undisclosed money, not Obama

31) Harp on Health Care

32) Sarah Palin

33) Gay Rights

34) Rinse

35) Harp on Health Care

36) Complain about Sarah Palin

37) Gay Rights

38) Rinse

39) Secret money

40) Only the Republicans take money, not Obama

41) Harp on Health Care

42) Sarah Palin

43) Gay Rights

44) Rinse

45) Harp on Health Care

46) Complain about Sarah Palin

47) Gay Rights

48) Rinse

49) Secret money

50) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

51) Harp on Health Care

52) Sarah Palin

53) Gay Rights

54) Rinse

55) Harp on Health Care

56) Complain about Sarah Palin

57) Gay Rights

58) Rinse

59) Secret money

60) Only the Republicans take secret money, not Obama

61) Harp on Health Care

62) Sarah Palin

63) Gay Rights

64) Rinse

65) Harp on Health Care

66) Complain about Sarah Palin

67) Gay Rights

68) Rinse

69) Secret money

70) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

71) Harp on Health Care

72) Sarah Palin

73) Gay Rights

74) Rinse

75) Harp on Health Care

76) Complain about Sarah Palin

77) Gay Rights

78) Rinse

79) Secret money

80) Only the Republicans take money, not Obama

81) Harp on Health Care

82) Sarah Palin

83) Gay Rights

84) Rinse

85) Harp on Health Care

86) Complain about Sarah Palin

87) Gay Rights

88) Rinse

89) Secret money

90) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

91) Harp on Health Care

92) Sarah Palin

93) Gay Rights

94) Rinse

95) Harp on Health Care

96) Complain about Sarah Palin

97) Gay Rights

98) Rinse

99) Secret money

100) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 12:34 PM | Report abuse

And, btw, Greg, and noted to all other commenters: I won't be commenting on anything else or responding to anything else except reposting my demand to Greg until he deals with it appropriately. I've said all I have to say and all that needs saying on the last thread to wbgonne's arguments here.

You can ban me if you want, Greg, but it's either going to be me or caothien9. I'm throwing that gauntlet down right now. I don't much care which way it goes. Either he goes, or I go and you have the egg on your face.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 12:34 PM | Report abuse

o me that makes private gun ownership by sane, law abiding citizens even more important since criminals aren't going obey gun laws anyway.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 11:31 AM


.........................

I hear you.
You want to be just like the criminals.

"If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns". Isn't that the slogan that all you bedwetting gun huggers love to use?

How about this: If you outlaw rape, then only criminals will rape. That deprives "sane law abiding people" like you, of the right to rape, since rapists "are going to ignore the law anyway".

Of course it is also so unfair to set any speed limits, since some people are going to speed anyway, and that deprives you of your right to speed past schools.


Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Re gun control:

Ed and a buddy Bob are out in the woods hunting when suddenly Bob grabs his chest and falls to the ground. He doesn't seem to be breathing; his eyes are rolled back in his head.

Ed whips out his cell phone and calls 911. He gasps to the operator, "I need help, I think my friend Bob is dead! What should
I do?"

The operator, in a calm soothing voice says, "Just take it easy and
follow my instructions. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence...... and then a gun shot is heard.

Ed comes back on the line : "Okay, now what?"

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 12:35 PM | Report abuse

|hi:Question: Do you think I could get a government grant to study the impact of handedness on twist ties and the time lost from twisting in the wrong direction?|

Actually, here is a tip: most men don't use twist ties. They twist the plastic wrapper up and set the bread on top of it, so it does not untwist, an effective, faster process which drives their wives crazy, slowly but surely.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 12:36 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne in reply to your ignorance on display at 12:32 PM


The source is what happened during the Revolution.

Why would the 2nd Amendment only apply to the government - when prior to the Revolution the "government" was the British???


The point was that the People, individually and in community groups SEPARATE from the government, could hold weapons.


What is wrong with you???

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

iGun Mania;

Just because the Supreme Court has ruled that every bedwetter in the nation must be allowed to purchase a gun, with no waiting period, does not mean that everyone has to own a gun.

Land of the free, my Arse! Right Wingers have turned the country into a nation of bedwetters who are afraid of their own shadows.

People are far more likely to die in a car accident, than they are going ever need a gun to defend their selves.

So, all you gun hugging right wingers; if you really are concerned about your families ever experiencing an act of lethal violence, instead of buying a gun, have them all stay out of automobiles.

Have them live like The Amish, if you really want to play the odds.

During my seventy years sojourn through life, I have never owned a handgun, and I never will. I also have never known anyone who has been the victim of gun violence, or anyone who has used their gun, to stave off a criminal assault. I have known three families that left their guns loaded, where some of their children got a hold of them, and shot other children.

There is no law against people taking daily baths in their own urine either, but that does not make it something that everyone should do.

Forget about the NRA and the Five Right Wing Stooges on the Supreme Court. They have ended the legal efforts.

Just don't be scared into purchasing handguns. They will not protect you, because you can not leave them around the house fully loaded, and civilians are not professionally trained, or qualified, to sort out who to shoot at, in situations like just happened in Tucson.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country. How many more do we need to have in the hands of every trigger happy coward through out the land.

The NRA is really just a lobby for the gun manufacturers, who want to always sell more and more of their lethal products.

You don't need their products. Do not let them scare you into buying one of them, and of going through life, with a fortress mentality.

The best thing we all can do, is to starve the gun industry beast, by not adding to the existing tsunami of loose handguns, that have already engulfed America.

Don't live your lives in constant fear of the homicidal thugs, known as Al Qaeda, because that is what they want you to do.

The same applies to the NRA. Do not let them con you into buying handguns, because they traffic in making us all irrationally afraid, in order to push more of the gun makers products.

You are safer without a gun, than you are with one.

Embrace that truth, instead of the NRA's fearmongering.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

What are you going to do about caothien9?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey tao:

That's funny b/c I grew up in Jersey and I was a Football Giants fan and a Mets fan when I moved here 25 years ago. In fact, my first year in Boston was the 86 World Series which I'm sure you recall and if not here's a hint: Bill Buckner. But I'm basically a homer and I've been Sox and Pats all the way for a long time.

The Pats do look good and they demolished the J-E-T-S a little while ago at Foxboro. Brady is as good as I've ever seen him and Belichick just plugs bodies into his system and everything spins like a top. He's like the Hoodie Football Genius. Plus, I'm not sold at all on Sanchez and I think he's banged-up besides. If the J-E-T-S can run the ball they have a shot. Otherwise, I think the Big Mouth gets what Big Mouth's usually get. (Poor Giants. And speaking of shaky QBs ...)

Gotta run. Enjoy!

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Liam, If I wanted to be like the criminals I would own some hand-guns. I do own one hunting gun. As Brigade posted:

"At last, a breath of fresh air, sunshine, and common sense. Even one so liberal as Carl Rowan had this figured out."

You must be a hyper liberal.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

And, btw, Greg, and noted to all other commenters: I won't be commenting on anything else or responding to anything else except reposting my demand to Greg until he deals with it appropriately. I've said all I have to say and all that needs saying on the last thread to wbgonne's arguments here.

You can ban me if you want, Greg, but it's either going to be me or caothien9. I'm throwing that gauntlet down right now. I don't much care which way it goes. Either he goes, or I go and you have the egg on your face.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 12:34 PM | Report abuse

QB is going on strike! F-ing communist!

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

caothien9, Greg -- are you going to do the right thing and ban him?

Are you reading this stuff?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 12:43 PM | Report abuse

quit your whining, qb1. How many times have you and your buddies called him a pedophile?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 15, 2011 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Quarterback

Before landing on this blog, Cao was at the Fix, driving everyone nuts and harassing everyone there.

This went on for at least 3 years.


The person has had multiple screen names - over ten - and claims to have over 50 IP addresses PER DAY.


Cao dragged down the atmosphere on Cillizz's blog for at least 3 years.


In my defense, he and the Obama paid trolls are the reasons why I just post what I think, and I just keep going past all the garbage on these blogs. That is why I post the way I do.


There is no way to have a constructive conversation with him.


When Cao starts talking about his homosexual life and homosexual exploits, it gets really creepy.

And now he is in Southeast Asia - and who knows what he is doing with the little boys there.


Furthermore, the Obama paid trolls seem to like him - they are really friendly - and many of them actually encourage him. 12Barblues set off a firestorm here one day by saying he was sensitive, and showing some solidarity in their homosexual lifestyles.


All this is quite creepy for a political blog. No one has to hear anything about their sex lives on a political blogs.


Quarterback - The situation is much more horrible than you think - it has been going on for 3 years.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 12:44 PM | Report abuse

qb,

Don't do it.

Greg won't ban the diminutive squealing apostate.

And this is the reaction that warms his heart's egesta.

Posted by: tao9 | January 15, 2011 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"QB is going on strike! F-ing communist!

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse"

Good to know where wbgonne stands on accusing commenters of molesting their own children. You're a real stand-up guy, right down there in the gutter with your pal.

Greg, what are you going to do about caothien?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

QB has tossed his cap over the wall. He said that if Cao is not banned, then he is going to ban himself.

That will be the day!

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

REVEALED NEW INFORMATION FROM WIKILEAKS


Buried deep inside the latest release from Wikileaks was GREG SARGENTS list of topics for the next two years:


Greg Sargent THE PLUM LINE


List of Topics for 2011 - 2012


1) Harp on Health Care

2) Sarah Palin

3) Gay Rights

4) Rinse

5) Harp on Health Care

6) Complain about Sarah Palin

7) Gay Rights

8) Rinse

9) Secret money

10) Only the Republicans take secret money, not Obama

11) Harp on Health Care

12) Sarah Palin

13) Gay Rights

14) Rinse

15) Harp on Health Care

16) Complain about Sarah Palin

17) Gay Rights

18) Rinse

19) Secret money

20) Only the Republicans take undisclosed money, not Obama

21) Harp on Health Care

22) Sarah Palin

23) Gay Rights

24) Rinse

25) Harp on Health Care

26) Complain about Sarah Palin

27) Gay Rights

28) Rinse

29) Secret money

30) Only the Republicans take secret, undisclosed money, not Obama

31) Harp on Health Care

32) Sarah Palin

33) Gay Rights

34) Rinse

35) Harp on Health Care

36) Complain about Sarah Palin

37) Gay Rights

38) Rinse

39) Secret money

40) Only the Republicans take money, not Obama

41) Harp on Health Care

42) Sarah Palin

43) Gay Rights

44) Rinse

45) Harp on Health Care

46) Complain about Sarah Palin

47) Gay Rights

48) Rinse

49) Secret money

50) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

51) Harp on Health Care

52) Sarah Palin

53) Gay Rights

54) Rinse

55) Harp on Health Care

56) Complain about Sarah Palin

57) Gay Rights

58) Rinse

59) Secret money

60) Only the Republicans take secret money, not Obama

61) Harp on Health Care

62) Sarah Palin

63) Gay Rights

64) Rinse

65) Harp on Health Care

66) Complain about Sarah Palin

67) Gay Rights

68) Rinse

69) Secret money

70) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

71) Harp on Health Care

72) Sarah Palin

73) Gay Rights

74) Rinse

75) Harp on Health Care

76) Complain about Sarah Palin

77) Gay Rights

78) Rinse

79) Secret money

80) Only the Republicans take money, not Obama

81) Harp on Health Care

82) Sarah Palin

83) Gay Rights

84) Rinse

85) Harp on Health Care

86) Complain about Sarah Palin

87) Gay Rights

88) Rinse

89) Secret money

90) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

91) Harp on Health Care

92) Sarah Palin

93) Gay Rights

94) Rinse

95) Harp on Health Care

96) Complain about Sarah Palin

97) Gay Rights

98) Rinse

99) Secret money

100) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Great post.

Later.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 12:52 PM | Report abuse

tao,

I appreciate the advice, truly. I enjoy discussion with you and lots of others here on both sides, and I've seldom seen a commenter on the nets as erudite and humane as you.

But I really can't let this stand. If Greg won't even address something like this, I can for sure live without PL. caothien may just have hit the wrong hot button for me, and, if so, so be it. At least it can be used to show that Greg has no standards at all and will tolerate any conceivable abuse by his liberal flock if he's not going to man up.

Greg just six days ago was opining about the need to police our own rhetoric and that of our side. This is his golden chance to walk the walk.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

So Carl Rowan was a hypocrite, and that is your big justification for owning hand guns. Up until Rowan was found out, none of you owned handguns, right. You guys are pathetic.

Larry Craig was also openly against homosexuality, and he got caught in a men's airport stall, using his foot to tap out in code:
I-Da-Ho I-Da-Ho.

I suppose now that Larry Craig has been exposed as being a hypocrite on Homosexuality, that has given you all the green light to turn gay.

After all, that is the gist of your logic, when you point out that Carl Rowan gave you the green light to become Hand Gun Nuts.

Hunting rifles, are not the problem. Trigger happy bedwetting handgun owners are.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Hope everyone is sitting down. I own the Austrian made Glock 9x19. Designed to kill people (obviously) it is an amazing weapon, doesn't even have a safety. It should only be owned and operated by well trained military/police forces. I took a course on its use, but of course, I have no formal tactical training and have never fired a weapon when upset, let alone scared.

I bought about 1990 after the abused girl friend of a convicted felon I'd help leave him...came back to him. Of course, she blamed me for destroying their relationship and also her having an affair while gone...he called one night and told me I was already dead and I just didn't know when, which is epistemologically true, so not a death threat, technically. This guy was a prison trained thug.

Call the local police...oh no, that'll just make him mad. What are they going to do, make him disappear? I work nights by myself, I am easy to find. So I bought the gun, learned how to use it, put in alarms, the big dog, whole shootin' match. I was not going to leave town, I was ready to kill this guy. I did not have kids back then.

Now I still have it. I suppose I could get rid of it. it sure is worth more than I bought it for. It is a strange object to own, given its purpose.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 12:58 PM | Report abuse

How much longer can America abide overwhelming, media bias in it's news reporting and political commentary??

Over 90% of our media has a liberal streak a mile wide. It is the Democrat media machine. It pervades everything; news, entertainment, commentary, bureaucracy, and our educational system.

If it were not for a small dab of talk radio, a few conservative magazines, lonely little FOX news, and the internet, socialists would have an absolute monopoly of political propaganda.

The barely 10% of the media that is conservative and patriotic seems to exert a powerful influence on America. That's probably why some liberals want to squash it. Leftist ideology cannot tolerate opposition. That is it's fatal weakness.

America is mostly conservative. It is time our media reflected that fact. We need a "fairness doctrine" that guarantees that at least 50% of all media output is of conservative viewpoint.

It's only fair!! I know most liberals are all for fairness. They say it all the time. I'm sure most liberals will agree our media should be more fair and balanced.

Only the bitter, leftist, dead-enders will object. The same ones that tried to manufacture false blame after the Arizona atrocity. They are the evil leftovers of an uncivil, rhetorical, noise machine that our dear leader recently denounced.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 15, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"QB has tossed his cap over the wall. He said that if Cao is not banned, then he is going to ban himself.

That will be the day!

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse"

No, I've said Greg is either going to ban caothien or me, because I'm going to be demanding his banning repeatedly on every thread.

It's good so see where liberals like Liam and DDAWD stand.

Greg, about caothien -- you good with his commenting or not?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Wbgonne, I know this means nothing to you, but DOJ stats show that violent crimes decreased in areas where weapons carry permits were enacted and increased in areas where they were reduced or eliminated. Liam's assertion that:

"You are safer without a gun, than you are with one."

Is apparently not accurate.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Shrink

Are you blogging while armed???


Do you keep your weapon concealed or on your side while you type????


I thought Greg has a rule: Check your Glocks at the door when you blog.


For me, I don't care.


Will Cao around, it's probably better if a few bloggers here are armed. You never know what he could come up with.

Shrink - YOU have renewed my faith in the 2nd Amendment. Im going to send another check to the NRA just in rememberance of you.


.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 1:05 PM | Report abuse

No, I've said Greg is either going to ban caothien or me, because I'm going to be demanding his banning repeatedly on every thread.

It's good so see where liberals like Liam and DDAWD stand.

Greg, about caothien -- you good with his commenting or not?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 1:00 PM

...............

Why does Greg have to ban you. You can just stay away. You are starting to morph into Sybil.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 1:08 PM | Report abuse

RFR

Thanks for the heads up on Sarge Greg's latest agenda.

Are you sure it's not the one from 2010??

It all looks so familiar.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 15, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse

REVEALED NEW INFORMATION FROM WIKILEAKS


Buried deep inside the latest release from Wikileaks was GREG SARGENTS list of topics for the next two years:


Greg Sargent THE PLUM LINE


List of Topics for 2011 - 2012


1) Harp on Health Care

2) Sarah Palin

3) Gay Rights

4) Rinse

5) Harp on Health Care

6) Complain about Sarah Palin

7) Gay Rights

8) Rinse

9) Secret money

10) Only the Republicans take secret money, not Obama

11) Harp on Health Care

12) Sarah Palin

13) Gay Rights

14) Rinse

15) Harp on Health Care

16) Complain about Sarah Palin

17) Gay Rights

18) Rinse

19) Secret money

20) Only the Republicans take undisclosed money, not Obama

21) Harp on Health Care

22) Sarah Palin

23) Gay Rights

24) Rinse

25) Harp on Health Care

26) Complain about Sarah Palin

27) Gay Rights

28) Rinse

29) Secret money

30) Only the Republicans take secret, undisclosed money, not Obama

31) Harp on Health Care

32) Sarah Palin

33) Gay Rights

34) Rinse

35) Harp on Health Care

36) Complain about Sarah Palin

37) Gay Rights

38) Rinse

39) Secret money

40) Only the Republicans take money, not Obama

41) Harp on Health Care

42) Sarah Palin

43) Gay Rights

44) Rinse

45) Harp on Health Care

46) Complain about Sarah Palin

47) Gay Rights

48) Rinse

49) Secret money

50) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

51) Harp on Health Care

52) Sarah Palin

53) Gay Rights

54) Rinse

55) Harp on Health Care

56) Complain about Sarah Palin

57) Gay Rights

58) Rinse

59) Secret money

60) Only the Republicans take secret money, not Obama

61) Harp on Health Care

62) Sarah Palin

63) Gay Rights

64) Rinse

65) Harp on Health Care

66) Complain about Sarah Palin

67) Gay Rights

68) Rinse

69) Secret money

70) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

71) Harp on Health Care

72) Sarah Palin

73) Gay Rights

74) Rinse

75) Harp on Health Care

76) Complain about Sarah Palin

77) Gay Rights

78) Rinse

79) Secret money

80) Only the Republicans take money, not Obama

81) Harp on Health Care

82) Sarah Palin

83) Gay Rights

84) Rinse

85) Harp on Health Care

86) Complain about Sarah Palin

87) Gay Rights

88) Rinse

89) Secret money

90) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

91) Harp on Health Care

92) Sarah Palin

93) Gay Rights

94) Rinse

95) Harp on Health Care

96) Complain about Sarah Palin

97) Gay Rights

98) Rinse

99) Secret money

100) Only the Republicans take secret undisclosed money, not Obama

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 1:10 PM | Report abuse

RFR:

Seems like you have more time for blogs than I do.
Have a new idea for you to chase: MEDICATED GOVERNMENT CHEESE

Detailed tasking in next comment.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 15, 2011 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Keep up the good fight, quarterback1.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 15, 2011 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Liam some of your comments are rediculous.

"I suppose now that Larry Craig has been exposed as being a hypocrite on Homosexuality, that has given you all the green light to turn gay."

Surely you're educated enough to know that people are either gay or they're not. They don't "turn".

Try using less flawed analagies.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Tom

Are you sure you aren't a Cheesehead?


I think they have the night game tonight.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Ping: RAINFORESTRISING@WAPO.COM
AutoRant mode: OFF
Delete Program: VAST LEFTWING POLITICAL-MEDIA CONSPIRACY
Upload Program: MEDICATED GOVERNMENT CHEESE
Output Mode: SINGLE-SPACED TEXT. CAPS FIRST LETTER OF SENTENCE ONLY.
Run Program: MEDICATED GOVERNMENT CHEESE
AutoRant mode: ON – MEDIUM

Posted by: TominColorado | January 15, 2011 1:13 PM | Report abuse

tao (to qb):

""Don't do it. Greg won't ban the diminutive squealing apostate.""

I'm with tao, qb. You know as well as I that Greg is not going to do anything about cao (or any other "progressive" here) no matter what he posts, particularly as the result of a public challenge. He has demonstrated neither the integrity nor the courage to condemn the behavior of anyone who agrees with him politically. That's just the way it is and you and I have known it for some time. We either accept it or we leave, and given that we haven't left yet, we've come to accept it.

Don't let cao's depravity get to you.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Actuator;

And you needed Carl Rowan owning a gun to give you the green light to purchase a handgun? Be sure to purchase the package deal, which includes a set of rubber sheets.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Why does Greg have to ban you. You can just stay away. You are starting to morph into Sybil.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 1:08 PM | Report abuse

_________________

Because I'm not leaving on my own. Pretty simple.

Now I'm done with you. Good to know your good with caothien's filth.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I live near Atlanta and like the Falcons, my son-in-law is from Wisconsin and is a die hard cheesehead as has become my daughter. I'm really in a quandry here.

Best to keep quiet I suppose.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 1:15 PM | Report abuse

RFR:
No, I'm a long time Broncos fan.
We placed high in the 2011 Draft this year!

Posted by: TominColorado | January 15, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Cao is not a progressive. He is a nut job, who adopted another country, but can not stop harrassing his old country.

He is like the guy who keeps bragging about how great his second marriage is, but who can not be stopped from stalking his first wife.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Liam, if you read with comprehension you would understand that I do not own any handguns, only a single hunting gun. A 16 gauge Winchester Model 12 pump action shotgun.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

If you guys think Greg is so despicable what are you doing here?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Look at Scott and QB emoting online before total strangers, just as they did when the Tucson Massacre was taking place.

Or not.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 1:21 PM | Report abuse

While I will not attack the host and I certainly disagree with nearly every opinion put forth by quarterback, I will agree that comments suggesting that any commenter is a child molester are ignorant and vile.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 15, 2011 1:21 PM | Report abuse

QB so you do not want to leave, but you keep demanding that Greg ban you, for what reason?

Are you feeling OK. You are starting to sound like you have lost all your marbles.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, that's exactly where I stand. Obviously both comments are bad, but if qb1 is constantly going to call cao and other homosexuals pedophiles, then who cares if he is offended? Anyone who practices such bigotry is a pretty lousy parent anyways.

Go and call for my banning now too.

You practice hatred, don't be surprise when it gets thrown back in your face.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 15, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

I've emailed you about caothien9. I trust you will have the courtesy and professionalsim to reply.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm seconding pragmaticagain here.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | January 15, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Liam,

You are a fair reiver, sir.

Well said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim."

Posted by: tao9 | January 15, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

@Tom: "I'm a long time Broncos fan."

Pretty painful year for us, eh? Although not near as painful as finding out that Elway was a rightie. :)

Posted by: schrodingerscat | January 15, 2011 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Liam, if you read with comprehension you would understand that I do not own any handguns, only a single hunting gun. A 16 gauge Winchester Model 12 pump action shotgun.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 1:18 PM |
....................

Good for you. I have no problem with anyone owning hunting guns. You are the one who started using Carl Rowan as an excuse for why law abiding people like you should own handguns. Since you do not even own one, why the hell are you pushing people to purchase more of those implements of child killing?

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 1:29 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:

""I've been wondering how the word militia in that context is defined relative to how the word militia in Amendment 2 is defined. It sure sounds like the framers had something specific in mind, in terms of what makes a militia & how the people are defined in it.""

Remember the purpose of the Bill of Rights. They were added to the constitution (actually, their inclusion was negotiated during the original writing in order to ensure ratification) in order to emphasize the fact that the the powers of the federal government were limited. So, in that context, it makes no sense to read the second amendment as being applicable only to meet the needs of an exercise of federal power (ie regulating militias).

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"both comments are bad, but if qb1 is constantly going to call cao and other homosexuals pedophiles, then who cares if he is offended?"

You might want to check your facts. I don't care what you think, but you lie.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Above re: the 2nd wife gag. heh

ddawg, you got some links w/ qb calling the NamPrawn anything near what you claim?

Posted by: tao9 | January 15, 2011 1:31 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

I asked earlier, but perhaps you didn't see it, so I will ask again.

Is there any law that you can conceive of that you think would be a good law, but which the constitution would not allow?

In other words, is it your belief that the constitution allows the government to do virtually anything, provided that thing is deemed to be a "good" thing?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Liam, I don't think I pushed for people to obtain hand guns I believe I indicated their right to do so and cited that DOJ stats show that localities that have carry permits have had reductions in violent crime as opposed to localities that reduced or eliminated them resulting in increased violent crime. Hmmm long sentence. Carry permits are not usually given to just anyone.

Now I'm going to get on the old elliptical and aerobicize.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

"They were added to the constitution (actually, their inclusion was negotiated during the original writing in order to ensure ratification) in order to emphasize the fact that the the powers of the federal government were limited."
---------------------------------------
Where does it say that? Is that written somewhere in the margins? Was that the reason everyone wanted them added or was there some debate or disagreement involved?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | January 15, 2011 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I'll take a stab ... no shot ... no ummmmmm ... I'll try to answer that question if you don't mind, Scott ....

Pretty much, yes.

Do you have something specific in mind that you think would be a "good" law but banned by the Constitution?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 15, 2011 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"ddawg, you got some links w/ qb calling the NamPrawn anything near what you claim?

January 15, 2011"

No.

If it makes you feel better to think I'm making this up, then go ahead and think it.

It happens all the time. It's disgusting, so good riddance to qb1. He and his fellow Conservatives want license to say whatever the hell they want. Whether it be calling homosexuals pedophiles, whether it be calling for the murder of elected officials, whether it be for calling end-of-care discussion death panels.

Then at the first provocation, they demand so and so be banned.

If you want to sympathize with him, go ahead. I'm a better human being than to give him an ounce of pity.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 15, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1, don't worry about DDAWD. We will take care of that New Orleans fruitcake. You focus of Greg banning caothien9.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 15, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

I hear you, and thoughts appreciated. Insult, epithets, sharp elows, no big deal, but people mess my kids or even joke about something like this -- that pushes me too far.

I don't think Greg has shown much spine or readiness to walk his talk, but I still can't believe he's caothien low.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Well, there is also this:

I like to play wee-wee with a little boys.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 9:49 AM
-------

We know. We know.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I am speaking only for myself but I think these online folks can take care of themselves when it comes to such things. They don't need my help or involvement.

Later, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 15, 2011 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I've never seen quarterback1 call or even insinuate that caothien9 is a pedophile, so I think DDAWD is mistaking him for someone else or lying too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 15, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I am snowed in, so I have some digging out to do, before settling in to watch the NFL games.

So have a good afternoon all, regardless of your politics.

QB. Greg said that he has suspended trying to ban any more people. It appears as if he has started relying on people to use Kevin's Whack A Troll script, and he mentioned that the Entire Post site was going to soon carry an ignore option, on all it's comments threads.

So you might want to just use Kevin's Peekaboo Script to just make Cao disappear, until the ignore option is installed on Plumline.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Schrod'sCat;

Yeah, too much Bronco's drama last two years.

Nice for me to see that Elway is a conservative, but I'm to the right of Bush/Rove, orbiting near "Darth Cheney". Cheney's book should be interesting, hope he and the girls finish it soon.

Nap time, went out last night, didn't get much sleep.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 15, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

ddawd:

""Obviously both comments are bad, but if qb1 is constantly going to call cao and other homosexuals pedophiles...""

Would you mind providing a link or reference to where this happened even just once, never mind "constantly".

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I think it's generally too bad that this place turns into a slugfest with locker room insults being hurled back and forth. I've had a couple of run ins with cao myself and it's not particularly enlightening. I understand why you're disgusted qb, it was a disgusting thing to say, much like the "little boy" insults hurled at cao on a pretty much daily basis, to your credit I don't believe you've done exactly that. I think I called it a pissing contest the other day and a game of one upmanship. The thing I've learned over the last year and a half of commenting here is to try to not engage in that sort of back and forth for what it's worth.

I've given up asking for people from either side to tone it down and it seems the best option is to ignore them, not with the TH necessarily, but literally just know that you're never going to respect anything they say so why bother taking the time to read it or try to convince them they're being @ssholes, excuse my French.

It's a liberal blog so I wouldn't really be expecting Greg to ban liberals anytime soon. I've seen other sites do a lot more scrubbing than is done here so in a way we're lucky, it's just that we have to put up with some pretty vile insults from time to time and you're not alone in that.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 15, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"Nice for me to see that Elway is a conservative"

Honestly, I think you can get a lot of mileage out of assuming a white pro-athlete is at least somewhat Conservative if he's not completely apolitical.

Can anyone think of any who aren't? Only one that comes to mind is Dean Smith who is a hard core Democrat.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 15, 2011 1:50 PM | Report abuse

ashot:

""Was that the reason everyone wanted them added or was there some debate or disagreement involved?""

Well, not everyone wanted them added. Many people believed that, by specifying certain things that the government could not do, the implication would be that it could, in fact, do anything else. (Boy were they prescient, eh?) Hence the inclusion of the 9th and 10th amendments.

But among the people that did want them added, yes, that was pretty much the reason.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 1:55 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1, Greg is even LOWER.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 15, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

ddawd:

""Can anyone think of any who aren't?""

Bill Bradley.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

oh yeah.

I was just having this conversation the other day on whether Drew Brees is a Conservative

Posted by: DDAWD | January 15, 2011 2:13 PM | Report abuse

John McEnroe and Andre Agassi are big time Democrats. I think that Joe Thiesmann was too. Pat Riley and George Steinbrenner contributed mostly to Democrats.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 15, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Wow let's give the conservatives some fun here today...I happen to attend several Yoga classes a week. I realized yesterday what was so impressive about my teacher. She practices humility....whoa...humility? I realize that is why I am repelled by Sarah Palin...the total and complete absence of even a scintilla of humility. This should be fun..having my righty friends like Clawrence scrambling to find an example of Sarah Palin demonstrating humility. I readily confess the left has no room to point fingers at the right when it comes to humility. Perhaps humility is a fault for a politician? I felt the high moment of Obama's speech...at least for me personally..but then I'm a parent was when he pointed out who the victims represented to us...our Grandmother...father...brother..and when he got to Christina Taylor Green the 9 year old...he paused looked down...and one imagined he had to see visions of Sasha and Malia...a little catch in his voice and he was off again. As a parent who was truly humbled by the sight of my son's first appearance in the D.R....well it just changes your perspective. Anyway IMHO that moment of humility is when Obama really connected with the American people.
I know righties...perhaps a fleeting moment..and certainly Obama can be as full of himself as the next guy...but he can at least still access that place of humility...I'm not sure Sister Sarah can get past her ego...and I actually feel sorry for her.

But this post is not really about Obama or Palin or even left and right, I've already stipulated that the left holds no monopoly on humility.

And so an open question or two for my friends left and right and in the middle too.

The Catholic Church identified humility as one of the seven virtues. Do we think humility is all that great?

Do we feel the United States has exhibited any humility in the past 30 years?

Do we believe the United States is a humble nation today?

Just some food for thought. Now have your food fight.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 15, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

@Liam

I just saw a terrific movie on Showtime. Perhaps you've seen if not I recommend it highly to you.

It was called "The Wind the Shakes Barley"
It's set in the 20's in Ireland during the battle for independence. A young Irish doc sees the black and tans brutalizing some locals and joins the IRA.

It's really well done with Irish actors and obviously shot in Ireland. It's especially touching in highlighting how the suffering, hatred, battling effected everybody..and the saddest part of course is after the first "peace" settlement..rejected by 70% of Sinn Fein which left the country with Irish on Irish violence.

Anyway Liam it was the best movie I've seen set in the Irish revolution. Catch it if you can.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 15, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

""Do we think humility is all that great?""

There is nothing wrong with it, but I don't think its absence is necessarily a problem.

""Do we feel the United States has exhibited any humility in the past 30 years?""

I don't think it is a particularly useful concept as applied to nations.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Just added qb1 to the *plonk* list, since he seemed absolute in his pursuit of doing nothing but whining about his victimhood at the hands of other commenters here... and Troll Hunter has blown up the formatting but GOOD.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 15, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. Hang around dude. We like you to liven up our discussions. :-)

FWIW As a parent I do take your point....TRULY take your point. It would please me to have Cao say that wasn't what he was referring to but was just engaging in the "dozens" ala Liam and Brigade who hurl insults at each far worse than what Cao said.
Again though that doesn't mean I don't agree with your basic premise I do!!!

I remember when Bilgey made a comment to me that we Vietnam Vets should be ashamed of losing the war and that their shouldn't have been a memorial built for us losers.
That did piss me off I must confess...but then Bilgey finally did get banned didn't he...poor slave bilgey. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 15, 2011 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Scott :-) Just two more points upon which we disagree. I know that must really shock you.

I think humility is an incredible asset...but then I post imHo a lot..not always sincerely I confess. :-)

And I believe nations are very similar to individuals and reflect the culture and consensus of the societies they represent.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 15, 2011 3:55 PM | Report abuse

ruk,

You are someone I respect and obviously a decent human being, despite how much we've gone hammer and tong, traded insult, etc., before. Same for lmsinca (well, she does insult too well). Most of the liberals here would never stoop so low, no matter how fiercely we've fought. I certainly never would. I makes me livid just to think of it, and the fact that someone can joke about it is very disturbing.

We say things like that here all the time -- you're disturbed, he's disturbed, her argument is disturbing. But as a parent (and I don't doubt you know exactly what I mean), when I say this is disturbing I mean it very literally. I can't stomach it.

I'm going to watch some football and do some work. Maybe I'll come back or maybe not. Maybe just to finish what I started. It just does me no good to deal with garbage like that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 15, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Anyway Liam it was the best movie I've seen set in the Irish revolution. Catch it if you can.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 15, 2011 3:31 PM |

.........................

I have a DVD copy of it. Very well done, and quite accurate. My father was a member of the North Tipperary flying column, that conducted similar raids against Black And Tan Garrisons, and Patrols, in the region around The Keeper Hill , in North Tipperary. He met my mother, while "on the run", and hiding in a safe house. He was only sixteen years old, when he went on his first garrison raid.

His local brigade commander's family home was burned to the ground by The Tans, and they took the Brigade commander's father hostage, and used him as a human shield when they went out on rural patrols, in open backed trucks, which were called Crossley Tenders.

After one of their patrols was ambushed by The Flying Column, the Tans went on a rampage, and burned most of the nearest town out.

They set fire to the heart of Cork city, after Tom Barry's flying column, wipe out one of their patrols.

The Wind That Shakes The Barley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p2g2WuGXwE

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 4:20 PM | Report abuse

After all, that is the gist of your logic, when you point out that Carl Rowan gave you the green light to become Hand Gun Nuts.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 12:58 PM
-------

You need some remedial work in logic. The point was that even Rowan, who frequently spewed the same gibberish you're spewing here today, knew in his heart of hearts that a gun can come in handy with so many criminals running around with them. But like you, he denied owning one himself.

A little history and a little hypocrisy:

"In a 1981 column, he (Rowan) advocated "a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail—period." In 1985, he called for "A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns (except for authorized police and military personnel)."

"Rowan gained public notoriety on June 14, 1988, when he shot a teenage trespasser, Neil Smith, who was on his property illegally. He was charged for firing a gun that he did not legally own. Rowan was arrested and tried. During the trial, he argued that he had the right to use whatever means necessary to protect himself and his family."

(see WSJ June 24, 1988)

If you don't own a firearm and don't want one, fine. Don't worry about other people exercising their constitutional rights. When someone knocks on your door in the middle of the night, just have Ruby answer it.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

""Same for lmsinca (well, she does insult too well)""

Hey, I don't think that's a compliment, right? :)

Posted by: lmsinca | January 15, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 wrote,
"It was called "The Wind the Shakes Barley"
It's set in the 20's in Ireland during the battle for independence. A young Irish doc sees the black and tans brutalizing some locals and joins the IRA."
-------

I have the DVD. It is indeed a very good movie.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Just added qb1 to the *plonk* list, since he seemed absolute in his pursuit of doing nothing but whining about his victimhood at the hands of other commenters here... and Troll Hunter has blown up the formatting but GOOD.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 15, 2011 3:38 PM
-------

LOL. cao calls QB1 a child molester; QB1 is offended; so cao's sock puppet, jprestonian, blocks QB1. You just could never make it up.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

I don't know what it would mean for a nation to be "arrogant" or "humble". Certainly national leaders can be arrogant or humble, and perhaps that is what you are referring to. But it doesn't make sense to me to say that a nation itself is "humble" unless it is simply a rhetorical flourish meaning small and relatively insignificant (eg, say, "I travelled to the humble nation of Belgium").

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I sure hope Brigade The Bedwetter got that lovely set of Rubber Sheets that were being offered as a handgun promotion.

He keeps scaring himself into losing control of his bladder, with feverish imagining of dangerous criminals knocking on his door, in the middle of the night.

Yeah that's ticket. Polite dangerous criminals who knock on doors, to ask if they may come in and shoot Brigade, and his wife Morgan Fairchild, Yeah Yeah, that's the ticket.

A couple of years ago, in a western suburb of Chicago, a guy heard a commotion at his back door at one AM on a Saturday morning. He grabbed his handgun and waited in the dark, for the intruder to come in through the back door. He then shot the intruder dead.

When he turned on the lights, he discovered that he had killed his daughter, who had come home from college for the weekend. She had gone out for the evening with some friends, and her sleeping father, had forgotten that she was home for the weekend.

A true story. There are far more family members and friends killed with handguns than there ever are criminals killed by civilian gun owners.

That man said he would never own a gun again. What a shame that he was not smart enough to have never bought one, in the first place.


Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I remember when Bilgey made a comment to me that we Vietnam Vets should be ashamed of losing the war and that their shouldn't have been a memorial built for us losers.
That did piss me off I must confess...but then Bilgey finally did get banned didn't he...poor slave bilgey. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 15, 2011 3:45 PM |
------

That sounds like quite a stretch. Usually the people at the top make the decisions that win or lose wars. The USofA had the capability and the know-how to have won the Vietnam war in about a week and a half, as encouraged by General Curtis LeMay. It's hardly the fault of the veterans that Johnson and Nixon chose the path they did.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I dropped in, set my Troll Hunter to [my] default filtering of RFR and Cao, and read the comments. I am not going to clear my troll list to read Cao's remarks about QB but I assume they were vile, merely by assumption.

Ddawd, I think Brigade and Cao trade insults dripping in sexual innuendo on occasion, but they seem to like it, the way Chris Fox and KOZ did at "The Fix". It is a waste of time for the rest of us, IMO, and I thank KW for the tool to avoid it.

QB1, no one deserves the kind of insult I infer you suffered, merely for maintaining an alternate political view. I suggest you use "Troll Hunter". Life is just too damned short.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 15, 2011 4:45 PM | Report abuse

RuKidding,

Here is some thing you might like.

Imelda May performing in Helsinki. She is from Dublin, and does a lot of Rockabilly Blues, Jazz, and Irish Trad.

She is starting to take off, especially across Europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9EJvMm3nPg

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Don't let cao's depravity get to you.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 15, 2011 1:14 PM
-------

There's very little Greg can do with the current format other than encourage civil discussions. Cao was banned multiple times from the Fix, but he'd be right back under a different moniker ten seconds later. Same for his archrival Zouk---no, fiona5, I'm not Zouk and I was never banned from the Fix. Zouk's the one who initially got under cao's skin by referring to him as Ped. His insults never bothered me, and I was always glad to return fire, which is why cao now has me blocked. Some people don't like mud-wrestling; that's why I always take it easy on 12Bar. If cao gets to you and is too stupid to realize that you don't wish to engage on his level, I'd suggest just ignoring him or blocking him. I certainly wouldn't allow the cretin to drive me away.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I agree that Cao shouldn't have said that, but for qb1 to complain about it and demand someone's banning is just about as hollow as it gets.

Cao's comment was basically to accuse qb1 of pedophilia. You think I have an ounce of sympathy for qb1? The guy deserves it for his own comments of pedophilia. (not to mention the death panel talk)

I could go and use the troll hunter on all the Conservatives and the despicable things they say, but there's no point to that. I just block the worst offenders.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 15, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

There is a botanical contest now between the RNC and the DNC, whose leader will win?

Background of the battle. The SCOTUS novel iteration of the founding fathers' obscure vision of participatory politics is called corruption everywhere else. As the real money exits the transparent tradition of political contributions, the untraceable corporate and public employee union money is going to the "third party" organizations. These two are like gladiolas, the funerary flower.

“I know. Nerd alert,” Mr. Priebus said in an interview a few hours after he was elected on Friday to lead the national Republican Party. His voice was filled with self-deprecation as he recalled the moment...Humility was a key selling point for Mr. Priebus."

He seems ineffectual, enervated, a ready made flower spray. But in the world of potted plants, Tim Kaine has established an extraordinary standard of meaningless immobility. A floral cage match. Both are shade plants, both avoid limelight. The spotlight (not to mention a klieg light) would burn their petals. They don't do gaudy.

Speaking of humility, I think of Bartleby.


Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Bernie: ""What establishes or measures [any set of citizens' relative satisfaction with a government arrangement such as universal medical treatment/insurance] is whether they reject it.""

Scott: "We've had this discussion before. You are wrong. They may desire (the pretense of) free medical care while at the same time dislike the actual service they get. This is precisely the case at hand in the UK. There is a near constant demand for reform and change within the NHS, except for the one thing that might actually fix the problems...the method by which the service is paid for. And it is no surprise, for two reasons. First, people are attracted to the notion that they are getting something for free, even if it isn't true. Second, they have no familiarity with any other system, and naturally fear change. Especially when their only acquaintance with another system, the US, is fraught with misconceptions about the streets being littered with dying people unable to get any medical care. (Yes, there are people in the UK who do believe this is true.)"

This constitutes a pretty good example of why talking with you about a bunch of stuff gets to be wasteful, scott (a violation of 'prudent time management', as cao put it).

What I said above is true. In all other western nations some form of government programs exist and in none of them is there a mandate from the citizens there to get rid of their systems. The singular exception where there IS a strong mandate to change the existing system (in the direction of those other nations) is the US.

To you, this provides no compelling evidence at all that these people in all these countries are relatively satisfied - it must be the case that they are self-deluded via moral/intellectual weakness or childishness (they're "pretending it is free").

"They have no familiarity with any other system". As Canada reformed its system in the late sixties, we obviously do. In Australia, their system was brought in in the mid-eighties, so obviously they do. In the UK, then NHS was set up in '48, in Switzerland their present legislation dates from '94 (not sure what existed prior) and without going to the trouble of research I'll presume other European nations have had their programs in place for longer than Canada. But Brits and Europeans are as a general rule far more internationally mobile (and knowlegable) than Americans as a matter of geography and history. Your "they have no familiarity" criterion applies to America more than anywhere else.

None of this will matter to you. Thus the waste of my time and why I don't often bother.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 15, 2011 5:04 PM | Report abuse

For cripes sake just ignore that Cao guy. Who the hell knows if he is even an American. He could just as easily be some guy in Iran or anywhere else, pretending that he abandoned the USA because it was so evil.

He is just another one of those types that keep cropping up through out history. He reminds me of Toyko Rose, and that Jewish
American Taliban guy;Adam Gadahn.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

ddawd writes

Honestly, I think you can get a lot of mileage out of assuming a white pro-athlete is at least somewhat Conservative if he's not completely apolitical.


_____________________

Why do you always have to bring race into the discussion???


You have falsely called too many people racist - far too many for anyone to ever take you seriously again.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Proud And Humble, Composed and performed by Imelda May.

At The Abbey Road Studio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2j2qrrYhU

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Liam, the story you told was indeed sad. What makes it sadder is that homeowner did not have the forethought to hit the lights or use a flashlight before opening up on the "intruder". I would suppose that fear overcame reason and deliberation.

Posted by: actuator | January 15, 2011 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Yep, but without the gun, he would probably have done the smart thing, and just called 911.

That is what bothers me most about the collective mania to own handguns. Once you have one, then you are always with the mindset, that they are the first and best option, instead of letting trained professional law officers do their jobs.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it a bit unusual how 12bar and ddawd have made statements supporting Cao ???


I'm sorry but I do not trust these people. These people are a bit too supportive of each other.

The only thing I can guess is the Obama operation has some group going - they all know each other and they have all put out the False Charges of Racism on a regular basis.

These three - with a bunch more who I believe to be Obama paid trolls - dragged down the Fix for years. At the time Cillizza was doing little to enforce anything.

However - WHY would anyone homosexual person want to move to Southeast Asia??? In addition, all these remarks about his sexuality have been inappropriate for a political blog.

Now ddawd is DEFENDING this guy? How strange is that - for behavior clearly out-of-bounds.


I have for a long time now, had the clear sense that the Obama campaign - then the later Obama groups were paying people to be on these blogs - to HARASS AND MOCK PEOPLE.


Now they all apear to be friends, or at least more familiar with each other than anyone else is.


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"Mr. Priebus, who lives in Kenosha with his wife, Sally, and two children, Jack, 6, and Grace, almost 1...“Reince has good motives,” Ms. Priebus said in an interview. “He has a good heart. He is humble."

Take **|red:that|** Michael Steele. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama paid trolls


Sorry guys - but the Obama people are paying people to post pro-Obama garbage on these blogs. When they are done with that, they harass and mock people who do not agree with them.

They are trying to create the impression that there is support for Obama around the country when there is little.


They pretend to be in different places - they pretend to have different demographics. They unusually drop the name of their State (their fake profile) or personal details (which normal posters do not do.)

The idea of the personal details is to create the false impression that a wide range of white people like Obama.


The out-0f-bounds comments by these people have been unbelievable.


Im not sure if there is a volunteer component to this operation as well - they have people from around the country who appear to know each other - or have taken some class together - and they support each other on the blogs.


In any event, the Obama people are out-of-bounds with this operation - no matter what they are doing.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Baltimore has scored the last fourteen points, and lead Pittsburg, fourteen to seven, so I am out of here to see how it plays out.

I am a Bears fan, but I have a soft spot for the Steelers, because The Rooney family have been such a positive influence in making sure that African American coaches got a fair shot at becoming head coaches, and on average, theAfrican American head coaches have delivered.

Have a good night all, be ye right left, middle of the road, or Sybil, who is Great Americans, in all her many personalties.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Liam

The last day of school in my son's junior year of high school, he and a couple of guys went to a buddy's house down the street. The kid's dad had a shotgun in the garage which was supposed to be unloaded, my son picked it up, aimed and pulled the trigger, luckily he had enough sense to aim at a wall.

I understand the desire for gun ownership but I think it's a dangerous hobby. Carrying a gun in public, within sight, is nothing more than taking the opportunity to intimidate others. IMO

I have almost no hope that anything will substantially change though.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 15, 2011 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I actually met Rooney a few times - a great guy.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Rooney is an Obama guy by the way. Gave him alot of money - and helped Obama in the primary against Hillary. I think Obama gave him something like Ambassador to Ireland.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca

I just caught your comment as I was about to logoff, and I did not want to be rude to you;

The legal challenges are now over, but that does not mean that we can not continue to inform people of what the down side is to own handguns. The risks appear to greatly outweigh the benefits.

I would love to see a national database compiled, on a perpetual basis of how many people are killed by handguns in their own homes, or innocent bystanders killed by them, compared to real violent criminals that are stopped by handgun owners.

It is appalling how many children, under the age of fifteen, that are being slaughtered with handguns each year. The last figures I saw: more children get killed, with guns, in gang violence, and accidents, than the number of people who were killed in The Twin Towers, and that happened once, where as the slaughter of our children happens on the same scale, year after year. Who do we invade, other than our own hardened hearts, to stop that form of perpetual terrorism inflicted on those who are two young to know better?

I will check back tomorrow.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 15, 2011 5:46 PM | Report abuse

THE VIOLENCE GOES ON

FOX SHOTS MAN

MOSCOW (Reuters) – A wounded fox shot its would be killer in Belarus by pulling the trigger on the hunter's gun as the pair scuffled after the man tried to finish the animal off with the butt of the rifle, media said Thursday.

The unnamed hunter, who had approached the fox after wounding it from a distance, was in hospital with a leg wound, while the fox made its escape, media said, citing prosecutors from the Grodno region.

"The animal fiercely resisted and in the struggle accidentally pulled the trigger with its paw," one prosecutor was quoted as saying.

Fox-hunting is popular in the picturesque farming region of northwestern Belarus which borders Poland.

................

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 5:53 PM | Report abuse


THE VIOLENCE GOES ON


FOX SHOOTS MAN


MOSCOW (Reuters) – A wounded fox shot its would be killer in Belarus by pulling the trigger on the hunter's gun as the pair scuffled after the man tried to finish the animal off with the butt of the rifle, media said Thursday.

The unnamed hunter, who had approached the fox after wounding it from a distance, was in hospital with a leg wound, while the fox made its escape, media said, citing prosecutors from the Grodno region.

"The animal fiercely resisted and in the struggle accidentally pulled the trigger with its paw," one prosecutor was quoted as saying.

Fox-hunting is popular in the picturesque farming region of northwestern Belarus which borders Poland.


................

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Zouk has to be around somewhere, lurking.


Zouk, Zouk where ever you are


Zouk zouk


zouk zouk zouk come on out where ever you are.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 5:59 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote,
"Cao's comment was basically to accuse qb1 of pedophilia. You think I have an ounce of sympathy for qb1? The guy deserves it for his own comments of pedophilia. (not to mention the death panel talk)"
-------

Can you believe these guys? DDAWD was specifically asked for an example of where QB1 had ever said any such thing. QB1 has denied it, and yet with no support whatsoever, DDAWD repeats the charge again. He and cao are peas in a pod and neither of them have any working familiarity with the truth. I'd say they're typical liberals, but that would be too great an insult to liberals; none of the others here stoop to their level.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 6:01 PM | Report abuse


Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion).


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Im listing the Obama TAX INCREASES

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.

Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 6:04 PM | Report abuse

MORE OBAMA TAX INCREASES

Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following


1 Adult
2 Adults
3+ Adults

2014
1% AGI/$95
1% AGI/$190
1% AGI/$285

2015
2% AGI/$325
2% AGI/$650
2% AGI/$975

2016 +
2.5% AGI/$695
2.5% AGI/$1390
2.5% AGI/$2085

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS)

Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income


Capital Gains
Dividends
Other*

2010-2012
15%
15%
35%

2013+ (current law)
23.8%
43.4%
43.4%

2013+ (Obama budget)
23.8%
23.8%
43.4%


*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 6:06 PM | Report abuse

WAIT I'M NOT DONE LISTING ALL THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE TAX INCREASES


AND THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING - BECAUSE OBAMA STILL HAS A HEALTH CARE DEFICIT OF OVER 5 TRILLION DOLLARS

AND IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT TAXES THE STATES HAVE TO RAISE TO COVER WHAT OBAMA HAS REQUIRED THEM TO DO.


Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:


First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee

Current Law
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I just want everyone to know I am in favor of repealing ALL those Obama taxes.


Surely we can devise a much simpler and easier, and less expensive, system - which will achieve what everyone wants to achieve.


These taxes were PASSED AGAINST THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AND OBAMA LIED ABOUT THEM.


In addition, few people understood at the time what was in the bill. These taxes should have been LISTED CLEARLY IN EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THE COUNTRY - AND ON THE INTERNET.

Instead, Obama hid these details from everyone.


The AMERICAN PEOPLE deserve so much better.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 15, 2011 6:16 PM | Report abuse

QB1,

I'm with you.  In times like these I turn to that great theoretician, Rockmaster Scott:

"The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire. We don't need no water, let the motherf--ker burn."

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 15, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:

The framers certainly DID have something particular in mind when they gave the WELL REGULATED militia certain rights. They liked being allowed to start their own private armies.

The MILITIA was basically every man who could show up with some kind of weapon when called out to deal with problems that required an armed and organized mob. Militia trained on Sundays by gathering in the local town and purportedly drilling with those weapons they brought. Regulars had a particular dislike for militia.

SOME men, however, organized and PROPERLY trained and drilled, on their own and at their own expense. They carefully sought out good officers and had them train the units officers, and held each other responsible for good order and discipline.

BEING disciplined and trained, when properly lead into combat they didn't have the militia's tendency to dissolve into a useless mass of armed men, or to simply dissolve and run away under assault from regular troops. Just ordinary history recorder over and over. England actually depended largely on such well organized militia for its Army, with many of the Highland regiments, for example, being toe private troops of particular nobles. But England also didn't like the (can't use the technically correct term, ba...) to form their own militia and regularly prevented them from organizing themselves and arming. The Colonialists who formed such militia for defense against the French, Spanish, Indians, and other colonies, (The Green Mountain Boys were rebels against their nominal overlord, the Royal Governor of New York) tended to give the Crown bad vibes because the crown had no hold on them or their leaders.

Therefor the Crown tended to try to suppress such well regulated militia. That was one of the grievances that lead to the revolution. The Militia Companies at Lexington and Concord were such militia and the Governor of Massachusetts sent Royal troops out to disarm them.

EVERY CONSERVATIVE ought to know this, and every judge until recently certainly knew it.

But original intent has as much validity anymore for Conservatives as judicial restraint. Judicial restraint for the Right is keeping centrists and leftists out of the court, and original intent is what the Right wanted the framers to have intended, regardless of the fact that the framers could not possibly have had the intent because the concept sought did not at the time even exist.

We know what the framers knew about militia, and we know what they meant by WELL REGULATED militia. But to get a decision acceptable to the merchants of death who actually own the NRA we have to accept fictions of all sorts that claim original intent totally foreign to anything the framers would have admitted to.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 15, 2011 6:56 PM | Report abuse

**|hi:"We carry on because we have to."|**
Barak Obama.

This is not a trivial idea.
He has been talking about being civil to
one another long before the Republicans
accused him of using the AZ shooting
to make this point. He has been saying
the same thing over and over.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 6:59 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade "Some people don't like mud-wrestling; that's why I always take it easy on 12Bar."

And that makes you a decent guy...no snark intended. I respect the fact Brigade that since joining us from the Fix you have taken the time to realize who "enjoys" playing the "dozens" with you and who doesn't. You've been nice to me as well as 12Bar...thanks.
Now since Liam does it so much better than me..call him a (you can fill in the blank:-) I'm sure he'll be able to return whatever you direct his way. :-)

@Scott

"I don't know what it would mean for a nation to be "arrogant" or "humble". Certainly national leaders can be arrogant or humble, and perhaps that is what you are referring to. But it doesn't make sense to me to say that a nation itself is "humble" "

I'm probably not going to be articulate enough for you Scott but let me give it a "humble" attempt.

I feel that nations not only have personalities that reflect their populace's culture but that this is not really a new idea. At the risk of being unPC here...imagine that from a progressive...lol....Let's be honest..I still remember history books that referred to Germany as "militaristic" dating back to their Prussian roots. I think many people might look at Switzerland as a "peaceful" nation. Obviously I'm not talking in quantifiable specifics here. It is after all hard to quantify virtue or vice. But the Japanese of the late 19th and 20th Century had a distinct national personality..perhaps informed by their Samurai tradition perhaps that is just a cliche...but the Japanese and Germans of the last century behaved differently than the Swiss or Americans.

Our national personality used to be "live and let live"...we eschewed foreign involvements..Jefferson is of course famous for his disdain of "standing" armies...Ike warned us of the M.I.C. I think the M.I.C. has won. I believe that corporate profit of companies like Lockheed Marietta...in 2008 70% of Lockheed Martin's revenues came from military sales. Thats 70% of 400 billion in revenue that is producing right at 300 billion in profits. It is to their advantage as well as Haliburton...et al for us to remain in the most aggressive posture possible. Our national personality was never as aggressive pre WWII as post WWII. For heaven's sake..Germany rolled over Europe and FDR still couldn't get us into the War...he needed he Japanese and Pearl Harbor....a big victory under our belts in WWII and OMG we have to send troops everywhere!
Our national personality did not used to look like this. IMHO.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 15, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

@Liam That was a fascinating story about your father! Having just watched that movie I can get a feel for what your father must have suffered through...luckily he made it out alive.

Thanks for the link BTW.

Brigade glad you enjoyed the movie as well...it was I thought a very compelling story that didn't sugar coat what happened.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 15, 2011 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Of all the ...! Child molester? QB said he was going to play wii, sounds like wee-wee.

Someone seriously needs to get a grip, and a life.

Meanwhile I DO get called a child molester, daily, explicitly, no inference or embellishment required, and I dont demand the perps get banned. I just TH them and move on.

What a whiny little crybaby you are, QB. Go play some wee-wee and get over it.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 8:20 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline
that 6:56, an excellent piece of work.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for historical context, ceflynline, that was great. So those first fourteen words mean exactly what they sound like.

So as America gets ever crazier (to the point that diagnostic screenings like the MMPI need to be renormalized), and the Loughners and the Seung Chos and Scott Roeders take ever more victims, and loudmouths deliver libertarian diatribes with a gun at their sides to inhibit contradiction, we still can't do anything about guns. Christ that stinks.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I want to toss in my thanks to ceflynline as well. When I come here to Greg's blog (or anywhere else for that matter) my hope is that I'll learn something. It's a treat when that happens.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 15, 2011 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of learning, I've got a question which I don't have good answers for. I very much doubt it is a question for which there are simple or easy answers.

Here it is. Please toss in ideas if you are inclinded or think it an interesting question.

We know that trust in our big institutions is declining. But there's one exception - the military.

Any ideas on why something so counter-intuitive might be so?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 15, 2011 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Why did you say counter-intuitive?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Our national personality did not used to look like this.

==

Nothing to do with opinion.

Something snapped after WWII. America's reaction to Communism was way out of proportion and the crude excesses of the red scares and HUAC have never really been acknowledged. American involvement in Việt Nam had no clear motivation past what a telegram is for yet 55,000 Americans and a hell of a lot of Vietnamese died to send that message.

But at least there it was possible, presuming one was willing to accept a whole sheaf of lies and posturings, that America was trying to protect the South from a brutal invasion. That kind of elective self-deception wasn't possible with Iraq, not after America convened a cabal of liars whose sole reason for being was the invention of justification for invasion. America invaded a nation that was no threat to it for reasons we may never honestly know and at ruinous expense and loss of life, and irreplaceable loss of trust.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 9:09 PM | Report abuse

We know that trust in our big institutions is declining. But there's one exception - the military.

Any ideas on why something so counter-intuitive might be so?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 15, 2011 9:02 PM
-------

Because there are far more conservatives than liberals in the military.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 9:13 PM | Report abuse

OT re the military, but alternet has a great profile of Thom Hartman up. I like his radio show but don't get to listen very often.

""Thom illustrates the impact of Citizens United on the re-election prospects for Barack Obama, who, he says, will now probably have spend $1 billion in order to win the presidency.""

"Which means every morning when he gets up -- 365 days a year, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, Christmas -- he's gotta raise $1.3 million or he's not going to be president. Now with that comes some problems. Then you've got senators," Hartmann continues, "Six or seven years ago a senator who is an acquaintance of mine said, 'I wake up every morning knowing that I have to raise $20,000 today.' And he said, 'It's a horrifying thing to think of and it prevents me from doing most of my job.' Because they have to rent an office that's not on federal property and just sit there dialing for dollars all day and have fundraisers every evening. It's no way to live. It's no way to do politics. It's crap. It's crappy politics. It's totally corrupt."

Until progressives turn their focus to getting the money out of politics, Hartmann believes, they can't succeed with the rest of their agenda. "If we don't understand that our politicians live in that world and the only thing that's going to change that world is movement politics -- grassroots activism -- we're deluded. We have to do for [the cause of getting] money [out of] politics what movement politics did for civil rights, what it did for women's suffrage, what it did for abolition... We've got to do that for extracting -- for getting this cancer out of the core of our political system."

http://www.alternet.org/vision/149540/progressive_profiles%3A_with_new_tv_show%2C_radio_talker_thom_hartmann_brings_substance_to_style/?page=3

Posted by: lmsinca | January 15, 2011 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Simple. The military is off-limits for criticism. Nobody knows what level of institutional trust it enjoys because nobody dares even whisper a word of distrust. To so much as imply that the armed forces are annoying but angelic is an invitation to brutal attack and self-maẩginaliation.

So America can't even cut its defense budget, can't stand down from readiness for a repeat of WWII, can't close bases whose justifications expired 50 years ago.

Military spending bankrupted the Soviet Union and it'll do the same to the USA.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 9:19 PM | Report abuse

@bernie: trust in institutions is cyclical. Period of 80-100 years. Recommend the books of Strauss and Howe, especially The Fouth Turning. They propose a "seasonal" metaphor and claim that we are now in "winter," starting with 9/11 (the book precedes it) and that we will emerge into a period resembling post WWII when institutional trust was high.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 9:25 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline
that 6:56, an excellent piece of work.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 8:24 PM
-------

He was doing pretty good until the end, when he veered off into complete gibberish:

"original intent is what the Right wanted the framers to have intended, regardless of the fact that the framers could not possibly have had the intent because the concept sought did not at the time even exist.

"We know what the framers knew about militia, and we know what they meant by WELL REGULATED militia. But to get a decision acceptable to the merchants of death who actually own the NRA we have to accept fictions of all sorts that claim original intent totally foreign to anything the framers would have admitted to."

Utter tosh. But I see why bernie and liam liked it. Foreign to anything the framers would have admitted to? Absurd. As I mentioned earlier, it was not the well regulated militias whose right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed"---it was "the people." Ceflynline wants the courts to assume the founders would have been against private gun ownership---a concept he says "did not at the time even exist"---in the absence of a well regulated militia. Fortunately, the courts, as well as most constitutional scholars from both the left and the right, have rejected his "reading" of the second amendment. We may not have the French and the Indians tormenting us today, but we have plenty of outlaws---same as we did on the frontier.

Wishing for a new interpretation of the second amendment? Forget it. Things that transparently stupid can only be done through constitutional amendment. So if Ceflynline and his admirers have the courage of their convictions, they'll demand that the Democratic Party put repeal of the second amendment in the party platform---and run on it in 2012.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Yes how absurd to believe that the second amendment means what the words say.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 9:41 PM | Report abuse

"Until progressives turn their focus to getting the money out of politics, Hartmann believes, they can't succeed with the rest of their agenda."

I am not laughing, but I want to. Politics and money, carriage and horse.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 9:46 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote,
"Yeah, that's exactly where I stand. Obviously both comments are bad, but if qb1 is constantly going to call cao and other homosexuals pedophiles, then who cares if he is offended? Anyone who practices such bigotry is a pretty lousy parent anyways."
=====================================

This post from caothien9's bosom compadre tells us all we need to know. He knows exactly what cao meant, which is just how QB1 and everyone else took it. That's why his only defense of caothien9 is to admit the comment was "bad" but allege (falsely) that QB1 deserved it because he has called "cao and other homosexuals pedophiles" and "is a pretty lousy parent."

cao's only attempt at justification:
"QB said he was going to play wii, sounds like wee-wee."

Uh... everyone knows what it "sounds like". The phonic similarity is precisely why he chose this particular insult.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 9:53 PM | Report abuse

"Military spending bankrupted the Soviet Union and it'll do the same to the USA."

Well yes, there is that. They did not stop world wide military adventures because of politics. They could not afford the gas.

Here now we do Wall Street tithing and we know health care is coming into its own. All that you worked for America, someday you will pay it into the health industry, if the war and banking industries don't get it first. Just stay competitive. It is a free market.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 9:59 PM | Report abuse

I have a theory about our trust in the government returning sooner rather than later. I'm sure you've all been reading of the dire straights so many states are in balancing their budgets. Big big cuts are coming and it's going to be really painful for a lot of people and they're not going to all be liberals, contrary to conservative opinion. With the legislative take over by Republicans of so many states and the House we won't see any raising of revenue through taxes so we're stuck with cuts, cuts and more cuts.

I saw Chris Christie on Morning Joe the other day and Scarborough was praising him for leading the way and he thought it was so intriguing that Cuomo and Brown are doing similar things in NY and CA. Uh no, it has nothing to do with his "great" ideas, they have no choice. So the public employee wages and retirement benefits are going down, police and firefighters will be closing stations and taking even more pay cuts, medicaid and disability cuts, college tuitions sky rocketing, teachers being laid off and larger classrooms and school closures, roads, bridges, water treatment, etc. etc. all will suffer budget cuts and this will be the record year for foreclosures I think.

I think you get my drift. This is actually going to be the worst year and when it's over people will decide whether they want or need a little more government in their lives or not. Oh yeah, and rising insurance and health care costs will cause Americans right and left to beg for a solution.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 15, 2011 10:04 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote,
"Well yes, there is that. They did not stop world wide military adventures because of politics. They could not afford the gas."
-------

We're different. If we need gas (oil), we'll just take it. Didn't you know that's why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I think you get my drift. This is actually going to be the worst year and when it's over people will decide whether they want or need a little more government in their lives or not. Oh yeah, and rising insurance and health care costs will cause Americans right and left to beg for a solution.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 15, 2011 10:04 PM
------

I get the drift, but I don't think the people are actually looking forward to the coming austerity. Places like NJ, NY and CA are about taxed out. As you say, it isn't necessarily about "good ideas"; it's now about having "no choice". It's become not so much what we need but what we can afford. A recent poll showed that 70% of Americans don't want the debt ceiling raised. That's really not possible, but it does show they're getting the message about how serious the issue of the debt has become. If leaders like Christie can keep the pain to an acceptable level, the majority will support them. We know what voters do to politicians when the pain becomes too great.

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

So public employees providing essential services .. Necessities .. and the poor and the weak take it up the dirt road but we keep ridiculously low tax rates on the people not only most able to spare some cash but who've reaped the most from the society that only exists because of those vital services.

Yeah, leadership. Get back to me on Christie's stature when he's ready to raise taxes on the wealthy again, if only to Reagan-era levels.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

I know your oil war didn't work out, everyone knows, the whole world watched it fail. But you can't invade the health care industry. It is a "free" market.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 15, 2011 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Well yes, there is that. They did not stop world wide military adventures because of politics. They could not afford the gas.

==

Don't they have more gas than just about anyone?

It was Afghanistan that laid the last straw, as it appears to be doing for the USA, too.

Antigovernment conservatives like to say that taxation removes money from the economy, yet ironically they support military spending, the one government function that really does burn the stuff.

What did we get from all those bales of hundreds spread around Iraq? Should have left Saddam there.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade

"ter tosh. But I see why bernie and liam liked it. Foreign to anything the framers would have admitted to? Absurd. As I mentioned earlier, it was not the well regulated militias whose right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed"---it was "the people." Ceflynline wants the courts to assume the founders would have been against private gun ownership--"

Tosh? And I'm not sure where you get that Ceflynline wants the courts to assume founders would have been against private gun ownership...just responsible gun ownership associated with a well regulated militia. I personally don't believe there is a single word in the 2nd Amendment that
refers to gun ownership as a means for individuals to defend themselves. But let's look at the Amendment one more time.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringe"

I'm a writer Brigade, I like to believe I understand words and so let's deconstruct the sentence. First of all we have the problem of passive voice instead of active and so we have to almost go from the rear of the sentence...

And so "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and did the founders specifically state a reason WHY the people should keep and bear arms....well Brigade you can wiggle all you want but you're running into the wall of English language that confronts you.

The Founders CLEARLY showed WHY citizens had the right to keep and bear arms...we don't have to read their minds, just read their words...because it's passive voice you have to go to the beginning of the sentence...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

That is pretty SPECIFIC Brigade...because a WELL REGULATED MILITIA is necessary to the security of a free state...

Cefyline did an excellent job at 6:59PM!!!
I agree with Bernie and Shrink.

Now if your reading comprehension is better than mine tell me where the amendment suggests anything about carrying arms for one's INDIVIDUAL protection. You do realize Brigade that a well regulated militia would probably keep their weapons stored safely in an armory when they weren't using them just as the PROFESSIONALS in today's military do.

We can waste the rest of the evening trying to divine what the founding fathers were thinking, or perhaps even intended, but the words they left behind are very clear. Hard for me to imagine the F.F.'s would have appreciated demonstrations sprinkled with some armed amateurs in tri corner hats...but I'm sure some of them could have appreciated all the $$$ Beck has made off of these loons.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 15, 2011 11:12 PM | Report abuse

The Conservative 2nd Amendment

("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" Simply edit out the first part in parenthesis and you are left with the NRA version...."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed""

Too bad the F.F.'s didn't realize they were completely wasting their time with that first part of the sentence. Wonder why they even bothered?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 15, 2011 11:18 PM | Report abuse

But you can't invade the health care industry. It is a "free" market.

==

... which is why healthcare is so shockingly expensive in the USA and why it fails to reach a sixth of US citizens. The motive of a "free market" is the maximization of profit, not the maximization of the public good. The two are irreconcilable.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 11:22 PM | Report abuse

The right of mentally unstable fanatics to own and brandish any number of firearms of whatever lethality however unjustifiable in terms of personal defense or any other rationale and irrespective of their potential for indiscriminate mass murder and without regard for a rich and bloody history of exactly that shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed! Shall not be infringed!

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 11:40 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 wrote,
"You do realize Brigade that a well regulated militia would probably keep their weapons stored safely in an armory when they weren't using them just as the PROFESSIONALS in today's military do."
-------
"And so "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and did the founders specifically state a reason WHY the people should keep and bear arms....well Brigade you can wiggle all you want but you're running into the wall of English language that confronts you."
=====================================

I'm afraid, old chap, that you're the one running up against the language. There's not a word in the document about armories to keep weapons safely stored, only about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms"---the people, not the militia. You are suggesting that in the absence of a well regulated militia, the people's right to keep and bear arms does not exist. You have centuries of consitutional scholarship and court rulings working against you. I don't expect to change your mind, but I'm happy the courts are on my side---not to mention the second amendment. Not for INDIVIDUAL protection? When the Indians attacked the settlers, they were supposed to dial 911 or email the militia?

Posted by: Brigade | January 15, 2011 11:49 PM | Report abuse

The Conservative 2nd Amendment

("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" Simply edit out the first part in parenthesis and you are left with the NRA version...."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed""

Too bad the F.F.'s didn't realize they were completely wasting their time with that first part of the sentence. Wonder why they even bothered?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 15, 2011 11:18 PM
---------

Even if one granted your premise that the rationale behind protecting the people's right to keep and bear arms was the need for a militia, that still wouldn't support your implication that the right was accorded to the militia rather than "the people" or that the right was made contingent on someone's membership in a militia. The intent was obviously that the people's right to keep and bear arms not be infringed. The motive is a matter of speculation and pretty much irrelevant.
Repeal of the second amendment would be necessary for the infringement you seem to desire.

Posted by: Brigade | January 16, 2011 12:03 AM | Report abuse

The right of mentally unstable fanatics to own and brandish any number of firearms of whatever lethality however unjustifiable in terms of personal defense or any other rationale and irrespective of their potential for indiscriminate mass murder and without regard for a rich and bloody history of exactly that shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed! Shall not be infringed!

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 11:40 PM
-------

That's a singularly poor reading of the amendment, but it's good to see cao's finally seen the light.

Posted by: Brigade | January 16, 2011 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Repeal of the second amendment is a great idea and long overdue. Thank heavens we're still free of being forced to house soldiers under our roofs.

Both the Second and Third are rendered obsolete by the US military, and America's love affair with personal weaponry, red in tooth and claw, is more than reason enough to get rid of the damned things.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 12:08 AM | Report abuse

So QB throws down the gauntlet, threatening to leave if his nemesis isn't banned for him. Oh noes! That would be a disaster! Why, without his steady stream of lip-curling sarcasm and snarling insults, this blog could degenerate into actual discussion!

QB holds ALL the cards here!

</sarcasm>

Door. Hitcha. Splitcha.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Let him whine. I'm really tired of the "It's ok if you're a Republican" philosophy. He thinks he and his compadres have a free license to spew out all the homophobia they want? Screw that. He might not molest his daughter, but he's a terrible parent. Yeah, maybe the centrists don't agree, but the centrists are wrong.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 16, 2011 1:26 AM | Report abuse

I didn't even *suggest* that he was molesting his daughter. I was making fun of him bolting a discussion he was losing.

But every time I clear my TH list I see some of the conservatives explicitly, not suggestively, saying I'm in SE Asia to screw little boys. Not that I keep track of which conservative said what, as we both know making distinctions like that is about as useful as eyes to a cave fish. But QB is relentlessly nasty and snide and if he moved on it would improve the tone here.

Really funny that he chooses to post all that whining under this particular blog entry. Poor persecuted conservative.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 1:57 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, what really irritates me is the idea that the moderates somehow have the more correct position. If I say that 2+2=4 and qb1 says that 2+2=28. If Mark says that 2+2=16, the Washington logic says that he is correct since he is in the middle. But anyone with a modicum of arithmetic knowledge will insist that 2+2 doesn't make 16 even if the guy who asserts it is a really nice guy. That's the problem with the moderate ideology. It's still an ideology and no more related to the facts than the Conservative position. Again, I assert, that we need to abandon our notions of liberal, Conservative, and Moderate and focus on what is factually correct and what is the best for our country. If those conclusions leads Sean Hannity to assert that there is a "Liberal Media" then so be it. Those of us who will take his opinion as an honest opinion are far more screwed up than I could ever be.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 16, 2011 2:43 AM | Report abuse

Well what passes for the center in US politics is so far right that the "nonpartisan moderate" formulation is bogus right out of the gate.

Don't forget who is the enemy of the new populism: the educated.

When "the center" doesn't believe in science and regards arithmetic as elitist, what good is it?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 2:52 AM | Report abuse

Again, I assert, that we need to abandon our notions of liberal, Conservative, and Moderate and focus on what is factually correct and what is the best for our country

==

Wow you don't ask for much, do you. You live in a country where people experiencing the hottest termperaures of their lives deny anything's happening to the climate and who believe that nutty economic ideas that fall apart under even the most perfunctory analysis nd which have failed in every attempt are nevertheless what's best for the country.

We have an entire major party with a majority of members who deny the reality of evolution, and who believe, and passionately, tghat letting peopel strve to death and die of treatable ailments is better for the country than taxing people who won't even miss the money.

Factual thinking has been supplanted by belief and America is a nation of starkly split morality.

And that's not even considering that conservatives are, knowingly and deliberately or unknowingly and thoughtlessly, a bunch of liars.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 6:28 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of child labor laws, I am reminded of my trip to Vietnam. Every morning we would go across the street from our hotel in Ho Chi Minh, to a little outdoor diner for breakfast. And every morning this same little boy, 5 or 6 yrs old, would come to our table and try to sell us postcards and trinkets. His mother was always standing across the street as he the boy peddled his wares to the tourists. Then one morning the boy came by, but this time he had a bruised up eye and an arm in a sling, and his mother was accompanying him, still trying to sell his stuff. We asked what happened. She told us that the day before, as the boy was working, he got hit by a motorcycle on the side of the road.

I guess they don't have sick leave laws in Vietnam. At least not for child workers.

==

The point that has soared over your head is that the kid was working for his parents, not in a sweatshop owned by a corporation.

And you don't need to come here to see Asian kids working for their parents. Go to any Taiwanese grocery and you'll see children stocking the shelves. And it isn't a cute little game, those kids already know that this little store is the only thing standing between them are grim poverty.

I don't know about you but I find that more admirable than filling their heads with junk about Santa Claus and brand loyalties.

Nor do you need to come here to see kids hit by vehicles. It happens in the US, too.

And back in the days of the sweatshops, you know the ones that liberals distorted the marketplace by making them illegal, there were no sick days either. Nor were there protections from dangerous machinery nor from chemicals that would kill them before they grew up.

And that's what you want to see come back, right? Course you do. Let the marketplace decide.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 6:53 AM | Report abuse

I don't look around for conservative blogs that have open commenting, but at one time, I did. Back then, it was rare that they would even have comments, and the ones that did were pretty religious in their zeal to purge any commentary not in line with the blogger's ideology.

Have things changed?

==

No. Make a liberal comment on freerepublic and your account will be deactivated within minutes.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 7:02 AM | Report abuse

re my "trust" query...

@cao - I expect trust in institutions is cyclical (which Strauss, by the way?). But as to why the military differs in the present, your following post (impermissability of criticising the military) gets to something key, I think. Thanks.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 16, 2011 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Another conservative, in this case a failed candidate, has been arrested for threatening officials Sharon Angle style...

"What do you need to have done to get all the current government out of office? That is why we should own guns to go into court to get my right to trial back."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/15/AR2011011502851.html?hpid=sec-politics

What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 16, 2011 7:41 AM | Report abuse

"Don't forget who is the enemy of the new populism: the educated."

How would you know?

{{{hehX7X77}}}

woops! gotta get goin' to Mass.

On the flip, Estragons.

Posted by: tao9 | January 16, 2011 7:46 AM | Report abuse

An example of drawing the right lessons from history...

"Germany’s Jewish community combats German Islamophobia"

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/germany-s-jewish-community-combats-german-islamophobia-1.337099

Posted by: bernielatham | January 16, 2011 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Another conservative, in this case a failed candidate, has been arrested for threatening officials Sharon Angle style.""

Actually, she was arrested for specific threats against specific people, not for "threatening officials Sharon Angle style".

From the article:

""The alleged threats mentioned four Morgan County judges, and other public officials - including Sonnega - were mentioned by first name. Media reports said Allen had previously filed a discrimination lawsuit that was dismissed by a judge.

"One day I will have my revenge on your seeking so much revenge on me," read one of the posts cited in media reports.

"Someday Boooooom while your setting in your offices," read a second. "And you know I won't even be the one pulling the trigger," said another. ""

Also, there is no mention that she is a "conservative", only that she attempted to get the Republican nomination for a congressional seat and failed, winning only 3% of the primary vote.

There is however, mention that authorities intend to have her mental health evaluated. Good...she sounds like a loon.

BTW..."another" conservative? Perhaps you could fill us in on the others in this list.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 16, 2011 8:11 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie:

http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-William-Strauss/dp/0767900464/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295183600&sr=1-1

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 8:15 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie:

http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-William-Strauss/dp/0767900464/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295183600&sr=1-1

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 8:16 AM | Report abuse

What are you quibbling over, Scott?

That she's a conservative? If her party affiliation didn't let the cat out of the bag, the rhetoric certainly did.

Or is it that she's the first to be arrested? Wow, major gotcha point for you!

Some of us think Palin and Angle, especially, should have been arrested.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 8:21 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3, they STILL think that Jared Loughner is a "conservative" and therefore want all conservative arrested. Muslims, though, no way!

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 16, 2011 8:39 AM | Report abuse

What idiotic hyperbole.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Great piece on Stuxnet...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

@Scott - Give it a rest. That use of guns against government officials is a valid and modernly necessary (or on the cusp) means of achieving some personal narrative of justice is what Angle (and other like her) explicitly or implicitly are advancing.

Re "conservative"... what do you think she calls herself? Liberal? Who do you expect a Republican candidate would be voting for in elections? If you find out she's a communist university professor who drinks arugula tea, let us know.

Others? That's just intentionally obtuse. And dishonest.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 16, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

@Brigade

"You are suggesting that in the absence of a well regulated militia, the people's right to keep and bear arms does not exist."

It's certainly not my intention to suggest such a thing. It could be my writing that threw you off track but since you made the same leap with Cefyline I think perhaps the confusion might be on your side...doesn't really matter who is responsible for our miscommunication let me try to attempt to clear up our misunderstanding.

As far as armories...THAT was simply a suggestion...I certainly don't believe the 2nd Amendment says anything about where arms are stored...since we're not trying to divine what the F.F.'s were thinking I readily concede that is simply an opinion based of Cefyline's wonderful outline of the historical context. But I could certainly be mistaken.

But here is where you are misreading us Brigade. Nobody is saying the 2nd Amendment FORBIDS gun ownership for individual defense anymore than we are saying it permits individuals to carry arms irresponsibly in public places.

This is what I do not understand about the Conservative mind. If the 2nd amendment was to protect us against our Gov't should it run amuck or be taken over by a tyrant wouldn't it then seem logical that the Amendment..if for our TRUE ability to defend ourselves against the Gov't would have allowed us to engage in the arms race with the Government.

In other words Brigade why weren't the Michigan Hutaree allowed to possess grenade launchers? An Abrams tank if they could afford one in this free enterprise market. How about some RPG's, or shoulder launched SAM's...shoulder launched..hell according to your interpretation of the 2nd they should be able to build actual AA sites around their campgrounds.

We have already made laws concerning automatic weapons, hand grenades etc..and so we are already REGULATING arms. We have started down that slippery slope(NRA viewpoint not mine) that occurs once you ask people to do onerous things like register firearms.

IMHO I don't think the 2nd Amendment actually addresses whether we are allowed to carry a Glock in the glove compartment...one way or the other. I think they specifically were talking about Militia's...I respect the English language and it would have been real easy to write...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,(and the need for a citizen to protect himself), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

It simply does not say that. BTW Again I own a weapon, I'm not trying to get folks to give up their guns, just saying we should register and control them at least as much as we do automobiles. Eg. If a gun is used in a crime..the serial # is traced to the owner and he/she is held accountable. If a criminal stole the weapon and it was IMMEDIATELY reported to the police the owner has a pass..if not they are responsible for not securing their weapons..same for child death.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 16, 2011 8:58 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: soundly reasoned, though you are addressing someone intellectually unreachable and logically impenetrable. Brigade simply reverted to "the first fourteen words don't matter" after a while, and argued by repeated assertion.

And I have read and heard RKBA fanatics claim that the Second does indeed confer the right to own all the materiel of warfare, even up to and including thermonuclear weapons. And I'm not talking about dormitory bull sessions.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 9:13 AM | Report abuse

I've noted before the rhetorical strategy of much of the modern right as some form of "never defend, always attack". Sullivan gets it and points to two individuals partially responsible...

"How Coulter Begat Palin
15 JAN 2011 03:10 PM
It's the methodology of never regretting anything and never acknowledging error that brings it home. And Coulter, of course, got it from Limbaugh. I'm thinking of Coulter's quote from a while back:

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

She was then given an opportunity just to say she regretted the outburst. This is what she came up with:

RE: McVeigh quote. Of course I regret it. I should have added, “after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters.”

Now think of Bush's inability to think of a single mistake he had ever made - after launching a war on false pretenses and authorizing torture as a legal tool. It's the mindset of constant attack. Politics becomes impossible because of it."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/how-coulter-begat-palin.html

And it's evident on this board and others like it. Discussion/debate as partisan war. Meanwhile, of course, both of them and many others like them, have made many millions for themselves by stimulating peoples' anger and fear through this divisive, inflamed and hate-engendering performances.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 16, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

So, Coulter never regrets saying anything, yet bernielatham immediately provides a quote from her saying she regrets something. Also, GWB has said his biggest mistake was trading Sammy Sousa ; )

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 16, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Remember Bush putting on a big show of reflecting on his performance? Puffing out his cheeks, focusing on middle distance?

Nope, nothing, no mistakes. One perfect policy after another. And it didn't seem to be an act. You really need to wonder about the messianism of a man who literally believes himself infallible. Oh, and the maturity.

Now the book. Looks like he's figured out he has some covering up to do.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Give it a rest.""

No. I understand that you find it preferable for people to simply accept your spin on things rather than actually read and understand the facts. Most propagandists do. But I'm not playing along.

""That use of guns against government officials is a valid and modernly necessary (or on the cusp) means of achieving some personal narrative of justice is what Angle (and other like her) explicitly or implicitly are advancing.""

Again, I understand that it suits your political purposes to advance the notion that Angle was advocating the murder of government officials in pursuit of personal grudges (as this woman was clearly doing). But there simply is no evidence to suggest it is the case.

""what do you think she calls herself?""

I have no idea. But if she calls herself, say, an intellectual, it doesn't make her one?

""Who do you expect a Republican candidate would be voting for in elections?""

I assume you meant to ask me who Republican voters would be voting for. (Candidates pretty universally tend to vote for themselves in elections.) But, according to the article, almost no Republican voters did vote for her. Perhaps that was because she wasn't particularly conservative. Perhaps it was because she was a loon. I don't know. But your attempt to link her behavior to "conservatism", while understandable for partisan political purposes, has no basis in the evidence presented. You are just making it up.

""Others? That's just intentionally obtuse. And dishonest.""

Of course. Your standard and transparent evasion when asked to substantiate claims you cannot substantiate. Bernie, you engage in more projection than 15 screen cinema.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 16, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD

Excuse me but I think you are conflating moderate, as in taking a more centrist approach to policy, with someone who prefers a more moderate tone in political discourse. One is a noun and one is a verb.

I think Third Way is a group prone to moderate or centrist policy prescriptions and once again I'm not particularly impressed with their solutions. It would be safe for me to say this really stinks.

MIke Lux has a piece in alternet with several links in case anyone wants to investigate this further including Yves Smith whom he quotes below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"This proposal guts state control of their own real estate law when the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that "dirt law" is not a Federal matter. It strips homeowners of their right to their day in court to preserve their contractual rights, namely, that only the proven mortgagee, and not a gangster, or in this case, bankster, can take possession of their home.

This sort of protection is fundamental to the operation of capitalism, so it's astonishing to see neoliberals so willing to throw it under the bus to preserve the balance sheets of the TBTF banks. Readers may recall how we came to have this sort of legal protection in the first place. England learned the hard way in the 17th century what happens with low documentation requirements: abuse of court procedures, perjury and corruption become the norm. Parliament enacted the 1677 Statute of Frauds to establish higher standards for contracts, such as witnessing by a third party, to stop the widespread theft of property that was underway.

The memo completely ignores the harm to investors from the bank mistakes and lacks any provisions for damage to investors to be remedied. Moreover, denying borrower rights removes their leverage to obtain deep principal mortgage modifications, which for viable borrowers produces lower losses than costly foreclosures and sales of distressed property. Thus this shredding of contractual protections in mortgages not only hurts borrowers but also harms investors."

http://www.alternet.org/economy/149543/the_stakes_are_huge%3A_there%27s_another_bank_crash_looming%2C_and_we_must_prevent_another_bailout/?page=2

Posted by: lmsinca | January 16, 2011 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Edit

Or in the case I used it an adverb LOL. I was thinking along the lines of to moderate, but whatever.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 16, 2011 9:47 AM | Report abuse

All, a fresh Open Thread for you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/sunday_open_thread_17.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 16, 2011 9:47 AM | Report abuse

"Why are Britain's sheep going missing?"

I was going to make a joke, but some English conservative (with children no less) might become implacably angry and demand I be banned or else he'll never post on the PL again, ever.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/15/AR2011011503157.html?hpid=topnews

But, but, where is Babe?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 16, 2011 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Again, I understand that it suits your political purposes to advance the notion that Angle was advocating the murder of government officials in pursuit of personal grudges (as this woman was clearly doing). But there simply is no evidence to suggest it is the case.

==

Right. Nothing but the clear interpretation of her exact words.

Dishonesty seems reflexive to you. Republican? Course you are.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I was going to make a joke, but some English conservative (with children no less) might become implacably angry and demand I be banned or else he'll never post on the PL again, ever.

==

Wondering how long before he comes up with a pretext for breaking that resolve.

Image: thumb on stem of stopwatch

Posted by: caothien9 | January 16, 2011 10:13 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3, do you have the full "I hope there's no Second Amendment remedies" quote?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 16, 2011 10:17 AM | Report abuse

claw:

""do you have the full "I hope there's no Second Amendment remedies" quote?""

Sure. She was being interviewed on the radio by Bill Manders, and it went like this:

Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...

Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.

Angle: Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.

She introduced the notion of the second amendment as protection against tyranny. The radio host injected the notion that we might need that kind of protection now, implicitly suggesting that such tyranny is occurring. Angle (sort of) rejects this notion, saying that she "hopes" we are not at that point and that the elections will prevent it. I think she could have and should have been more forceful by saying that of course we aren't at that point. But to push the notion that this was an invitation for people to kill politicians in response to personal grudges, as Bernie has suggested earlier, is either stupid or dishonest. I don't think Bernie is stupid.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 16, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"We know that trust in our big institutions is declining. But there's one exception - the military. Any ideas on why something so counter-intuitive might be so? Posted by: bernielatham"

It isn't particularly counter intuitive.

We still recognize our military as subservient to the will of the people. What the people want the military will attempt to accomplish, even when it takes a long time, like integration of the Armed Services or opening military MOS's to women. There will always be those in the military who resist such requirements, and there will always be whole groups within the military who don't seem to get the word, but for all its existence, the Military, in each of its branches, has acknowledged the primacy of the civilian authority.

Essentially, given Truman's orders to integrate, the services saluted and integrated. Given, time after time, instructions to change policies about women in the military, the services saluted and expanded women's roles in the services. Now, given Congress' action and the President's orders, the Services will adjust to gays and lesbians serving openly.

We trust the military because enough of us have served, and enough more of us know someone who served, that our experience with Uncle Sam's military leads us to have faith in our children and siblings.

That cannot be said of our other public institutions, which, even when they are actually acting in our interests, cannot be bothered with acting like they are subservient to anyone but their bosses, and their bosses personal interests.

Big Government, and Big Money, and Big industry all are perceived to be acting for the special interests that always seem to translate to the few rich against the bulk of the rest of us. Because there has always been a perception that little people be damned in the behavior of big institutions, they suffer for their arrogance.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 16, 2011 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, ScottC3, for proving it is caothien9 who is reflexively dishonest. Again, thank God he left the USA!

Greg, why haven't you banned caothien9?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 17, 2011 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company