Why We Need The 2nd Amendment

Because it can happen here?

I never would have believed it, but unfortunately, these days I think it could in some form. It's already a soft tyranny.

Comments

[Bob]

I honestly don't get it. Are you now making direct comparisons between the Obama administration and the USSR? And are you further implying that because the Republicans nominated McCain and McCain made the disastrous decision to pick Sarah Palin, and then make a bunch of dumb prima-donna moves that wrecked the voters' confidence in him, and went on to get whipped in the debates, and therefore lost the election, are you implying that now armed insurrection is somehow the appropriate response? Have you simply lost any pretense at respecting our democracy, or what?

Just because the Republicans can't win elections any more doesn't entitle you to disrespect our democracy. If you can't win within the rules then it's your own damn fault. This petulant and childish whining of wing nuts, complete with threats of violence, is really getting disgraceful.

[unseen]

2nd amend you say? If only we has a strong national leader that understood and respected the 2nd amend and was a 100% advocate for it. well it just so haapens that someone gave such an interview tongiht on the radio and its posted online.

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/07/gov-palin-on-michael-dukes-show.html

sure doesn't sound like a quitter to me

[skatzbert]

Very good, Bob. Very, very good.

You are an unusually adept practitioner of the Alinsky-style of attack.

But we're getting the hang of it too, Bob, and we intend to use it on you.

[Bob]

I'm not playing games or employing debating tactics, skatzbert. I'm just trying to bring out into the light what seems to be a troubling subtext in posts like those above about the 2nd Amendment.

If I read it correctly, these posts by Riehl and Scipio are saying that Obama's administration is equivalent to a situation where our government was taken over by a communist dictatorship, and the only possible remedy is armed insurrection against our own government. Isn't that right? So we have now reached a point where supposedly mainstream conservatives are advocating the violent overthrow of our government, albeit through wussed-out insinuation rather than just saying it straight up.

So a person has to ask, what do they think they're going to do with those 2nd Amendment guns of theirs? Guns in this context are for shooting people, aren't they? So who specifically are they planning to shoot to accomplish what they couldn't accomplish in these recent elections? What other possible interpretation is there for posts like these?

[Slide]

". . . it's already a soft tyranny" This is rather disgraceful, even for you Riehl. To suggest we are approaching the need for armed revolution because you don't like the policies of the Obama administration is about as un-patriotic and un-American a comment I have seen in long long time from a "respected" blog. And dangerous I might ad. I mean if you say we live in a tyranny, what isn't acceptable in overthrowing tyranny? Not much I would imagine to the double digit IQs that seem to be attracted to this kind of talk. Its disappointing to see that since the right can't seem to win on their ideas anymore, and that the last 8 years have totally discredited their philosophy, that they now are looking toward armed revolution as a possible alternative to their irrelevance. Wow.

You all have talked about the patriotism, or lack thereof, of liberals for the last 8 years for not being fully supportive of Bush in all of his misbegotten adventures, but here you are, not 6 months into an Obama administration, ruminating on treason. I find this quite shocking.

Again, I am going to repeat, this is absolutely disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself Riehl. Apparently, and unfortunately, that Homeland Security report of the effects of an Obama election on the right wingnut population was right on the money judging by the comments on the site you linked to. At a certain point its going to be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle. I hope you understand the ramifications of your actions boys and girls.

[Philip McDaniel]

When our Democrat administration and the Democrats in Congress start cozying up to the likes of Chavez, et al. in Latin America and the mullahs in Iran along with assorted fellow travelers around the world, and when we see the clear shift to more central government control of our lives, then yes, we are already living in a soft tyranny.
Remember:
"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

[Slide]

thank-you McDaniel for making my point.

So apparently when Cheney/Bush decided to wiretap American citizens in violation of the 4th Amendment's protection against warrantless searches, you were Ok with that?

. . . and when Cheney/Bush violated the very clear laws of our nation against the use of torture, you were ok with that.

. . . and when Cheney/Bush decided that the Executive department unilaterally could put an American citizen in jail, declare him an enemy combatant, and not allow that individual the right to an attorney or to challenge his confinement, in violation of the Constitution's habeas corpus provisions, you were ok with that.

. . . and when the CIA , as we just learned, conducts operations for over eight years without notifying the select members of the Intelligence committees of Congress as is required by law, you were ok with that.

. . . and when Cheney/Bush used the US Attorneys to selectively target members of opposition political party in an egregious abuse of executive power, you were ok with that.

But we are living in a tyranny NOW because you see a shift to a more central government?

Do you guys hear how incredibly fanatical you sound? I mean fringe, wacky, get the straitjacket fanatical. You are insuring your continued dwindling support among "real Americans, and increasing irrelevance by this sort of insane ranting.

[Lala]

Words of Wisdom hot off the press

"No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top"

Amazing, just amazing.

[Slide]

Full Quote:

"No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top," Obama said.

He said America would not impose any system of government, but would increase help for those behaving responsibly.

and what part of that do you disagree with Lala???

[Rob Crawford]

wiretap American citizens in violation of the 4th Amendment's protection against warrantless searches

Didn't happen. Communications crossing international borders are not protected by the 4th amendment, any more than, say, packages going through customs are. I find it amusing that the Democrats would strike poses demanding that EVERY CONTAINER GOING THROUGH OUR PORTS be searched while simultaneously making this claim.

. . . and when Cheney/Bush violated the very clear laws of our nation against the use of torture, you were ok with that.

Didn't happen. The Bush administration asked legal counsel what could be done to compel unlawful combatants to provide us with information while remaining within the bounds of those laws. That's what happened.

You may not like it, but that doesn't make it a crime, or turn waterboarding into torture. In fact, once Democrats were in control of Congress, multiple bills were presented that would have explicitly defined waterboarding as torture -- none of those bills were passed. Even now, with Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, they've not passed a law making it clear that waterboarding is torture.

Which either means the whole argument against it was nothing but political noise, or, by their own standards, Democrats support torture.

. . . and when Cheney/Bush decided that the Executive department unilaterally could put an American citizen in jail, declare him an enemy combatant, and not allow that individual the right to an attorney or to challenge his confinement, in violation of the Constitution's habeas corpus provisions, you were ok with that

Didn't happen. Any person you wish to cite, in the end, received counsel and their time in court.

BTW -- it's the Obama administration that's declared they'll still hold someone in custody even AFTER an acquittal. How's that hope and change working out for you?

as we just learned, conducts operations for over eight years without notifying the select members of the Intelligence committees of Congress as is required by law

There's no evidence this happened beyond a vaguely-worded letter timed for maximum political impact.

used the US Attorneys to selectively target members of opposition political party in an egregious abuse of executive power

Never happened. Hell, I can't even figure out which lefty myth you're trying to push with this one. The one that comes closest is the US Attorneys who were fired for not pursuing vote fraud -- but that wasn't in anyway an abuse of power, and the problem wasn't "selective targeting" but, rather, that these US attorneys were selectively IGNORING violations of the law when apparently committed by Democrats.

By the way -- a HUGE part of what scares the living shit out of people like myself and (I presume) Dan is the left's reliance on absolute bullshit myths like these. We're not talking about policy disagreements -- we're talking about the left's refusal to even consider counter-arguments, to even look at any facts that puncture these myths.

And, seriously, anyone who plays the "Cheney/Bush" card has no room talking about insane ranting.

[Rob Crawford]

"and what part of that do you disagree with Lala???"

I don't think she was disagreeing with your Messiah, just pointing out that, well, he's really not in a position to throw stones.

(The US government skims 30+% off the top, for example.)

[Slide]

the non-serious, disingenuous nature of the right wing is exemplified by this comment, "The Bush administration asked legal counsel what could be done to compel unlawful combatants to provide us with information while remaining within the bounds of those laws. That's what happened."

So if Obama hand pics some lawyer, appoints him as legal counsel, and then that legal counsel gives him justification to confiscate everyone's handguns, within the "bounds" of the 2nd Amendment of course, you would be ok with that right? Because he had a legal ruling? Lol, ok. right

I'm not going to go round and round with you on the lawlessness of Cheney/bush. I suspect am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me on these issues that have been debated ad nauseam, but I think it is pretty well agreed that the Cheney/Bush administration has exponentially expanded Executive Power during their time in office including the use of an unprecedented number of "signing statements". I just think it is humorous that the right now has their panties all bunched up because they are worried about Obama's shift to a more central government when we didn't hear a peep out of them during the Cheney/bush years

[carol]

Yeah, it can happen here. I wouldn't have believed it not too long ago either.
This gov't is frightening, and the Press is the 5th column.
Remember in the 1930's it happened in increments: "First they came for _____________".

[Slide]

crawford, "The US government skims 30+% off the top, for example"

not quite 30% after all the tax shelters are taken into consideration and much lower than in the richest nations in the world.

Of course Obama was chiding the leaders of these African nations for "stealing" 30% of the aid for their own personal use. Is that what you are suggesting happened during the Cheney/bush years? That they were skimming money for their own use? If so, that is a pretty damming charge. Obama has been around 6 months boys and girls, I know you want to blame everything from Adam and Eve's fall from grace on him but it just makes you sound silly and un-serious partisan hacks.

[Lala]

Bob, I think the skim is 35 percent and will probably go up to 40.

[Slide]

carol visits Godwin's Law with her, "Remember in the 1930's it happened in increments: "First they came for _____________"."

ahhhhh... yes. concentration camps are just around the corner carol.

[Dan Riehl]

"because you don't like the policies of the Obama administration is about as un-patriotic and un-American"

Slide, you're being dumb here, jumping to convenient conslusions, or you don't read enough of my various posts. The Republicans are just as responsible over the last eight years. They too have responsibility for helping to create the soft tyranny we accept as government today. It's simply getting worse more quicly under Obama.

[Slide]

wingnut Bizarro World: "Bob, I think the skim is 35 percent and will probably go up to 40."

Reality: Actually it's heading to 25%, one of the lowest in the industrial world. But don't believe me, believe SmartMoney or the Wall Street Journal network (well known left wing rag I's sure)

http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/

IF YOU SAY SOMETHING long enough and loud enough, there's every chance people will come to believe it's true, especially if your opponents tire of rebuttals.

This time-honored political strategy has been working overtime of late, as Republican presidential hopefuls romance the richer Florida retirees with appeals for cuts in corporate taxes.

You may have heard: U.S. corporations face one of the highest income tax rates in the world, though the mention of "rate" is often enough excised, so that what comes through is the assertion that corporations pay too much in taxes. This is simply untrue if your basis for comparison is the developed world. The truth is that while the 35% corporate income tax rate is high indeed, the creativity and global reach of U.S. corporations make them among the most lightly levied.

Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.

Why the disparity given the high federal rate, which rises to 39% counting state taxes? Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personal returns.

According to one analysis, if so much corporate income hadn't moved to the personal tax rolls over the last 20 years, U.S. corporate taxes would account for 3.2% of the GDP, still a bit below the OECD average. "Usage of pass-through forms of business organization can be viewed as a form of 'self-help' corporate tax integration," writes Peter R. Merrill, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The income not squired away overseas or channeled to the personal returns still enjoys protection in the form of various tax breaks that depress the effective rate to 27%, according to the Treasury Department. Such breaks are expected to cost the Treasury $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, reducing the corporate tax revenue by 25%.

[carol]

Slide: "ahhhhh... yes. concentration camps are just around the corner carol."

HR2647 From the DisHonorable Rep. Alcee Hastings, convicted felon.
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/AmndmentsSubmitted/hr2647/hastings82_hr2647_111.pdf

Slide, you need to get out of Mom's basement a little more.

[Bob]

"Slide, you're being dumb here, jumping to convenient conslusions, or you don't read enough of my various posts. The Republicans are just as responsible over the last eight years. They too have responsibility for helping to create the soft tyranny we accept as government today. It's simply getting worse more quicly under Obama."

Of course, Dan, you couldn't bother to even complain about it under Bush, let alone make insinuations about the violent overthrow of the government. Your after-the-fact criticism of the Bush administration is not only too late to do any good, but it's actually self-serving. It's supposed to make it seem as though you have actual principles, when you're just engaging in cheap partisan politics. Check out Glenn Greenwald ripping Obama a new one over at Salon.com for the past month without letup if you want to see what actual principles in practice looks like.

But I have to press you on the 2nd Amendment comments. What, exactly, do guns have to do in the context of this discussion? Are you saying that violence is an appropriate avenue for conservatives when they come up short within the normal rules of electoral democracy? I suspect it's more in the realm of juvenile fantasy for most of you, but I still think someone needs to call you on such irresponsible and disgraceful rhetoric.

[Dan Riehl]

You're just trolling, Bob. In fact, it's doubtful this country would have even been founded without the 2nd Amendment, as the people had just gotten out from under tyranny under a king. It's the notion that it could never happen again that is dangerous to individual liberty, which you would presume to be for.

[Bob]

I think that these references to tyranny and the 2nd Amendment are intended to be veiled threats of armed insurrection against the current administration, but that when push comes to shove, you'd rather not state it explicitly. I still find even the suggestion to be troubling, even though as I said earlier, I think it's mostly in the realm of fantasy. And the point still stands that if it were simply a matter of abstract constitutional principles, you would have been making similar references during the Bush administration.

[Dan Riehl]

Ah, so you "think" people are guilty of thought crimes? Typical Leftist.

Quit wasting our time. Just leave your address in comments so we know where to find you when the time comes!!

[rickl]

Sounds like a few leftists are starting to get a liiiiiittle nervous...

[Bob]

"Sounds like a few leftists are starting to get a liiiiiittle nervous..."

Not really, just wondering what the extent of the right wing's un-Americanism really is. We've already seen how many right wingers like to talk tough, but always seem to have "other priorities" if anyone expects them to do any of the actual fighting themselves. As usual, if guns are involved, their pets, neighbors, family members and their own toes are probably most at risk. Fortunately, most are still content to make empty threats from the safety of their upstairs bedrooms.

[southdakotaboy]

After the Revolution comes the last words Bob, Slide, and Lama will hear is "FIRE!"

I'm joking of course. I'm just like David Letterman (wink wink nudge nudge).

You guys don't have anything to worry about. Maybe, I'm pretty sure you don't. Oh who am I kidding! Run Bob Run grab your little helmet and run little buddy!

[North Dallas Thirty]

"the non-serious, disingenuous nature of the right wing is exemplified by this comment, "The Bush administration asked legal counsel what could be done to compel unlawful combatants to provide us with information while remaining within the bounds of those laws. That's what happened."

So if Obama hand pics some lawyer, appoints him as legal counsel, and then that legal counsel gives him justification to confiscate everyone's handguns, within the "bounds" of the 2nd Amendment of course, you would be ok with that right? Because he had a legal ruling? Lol, ok. right"

Notice how it is being made clear here that Slide and the Obama Party for which he shills see Americans who own guns as being the same as terrorists who attack our troops.

And of course, what's funny is watching the leftists like Slide whine about how "low" our corporate tax is and praise how Obama plans to eliminate all tax breaks to punish corporations.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"We've already seen how many right wingers like to talk tough, but always seem to have "other priorities" if anyone expects them to do any of the actual fighting themselves."

So let's see; Bob says that "right wingers" never do any of the fighting themselves while he and his fellow Obama Party members are publishing Homeland Security papers warning about the massive number of right-wing extremist veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Lala]

And, NDT, why do the Dems do their best to suppress the absentee military ballots?

[From My Cold Dead Hands]

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

"This petulant and childish whining of wing nuts, complete with threats of violence, is really getting disgraceful." -- Bob

Er, Bob, it's not a "threat of violence", it's a solemn promise... People of your mindset who would wish to enslave those who merely wish to be left alone will find the task perilous. If that makes you all insecure and funny inside, well, grow some b@lls or just leave us alone. You'll be fine either way. That would be very American of you, by the way... to either just leave us alone or just grow some b@lls.

Dan, where do you find these leftards?

[Slide]

Once again the right always likes to have it both ways. On one hand they say that we liberals are reading too much into posts like this, that they're really not advocating armed revolution (just yet?). You see we have it all wrong, or as Dan "soft tyranny" Riehl said:

"Oh, so you "think" people are guilty of thought crimes? Typical Leftist."

but they can't keep their stories straight and you get this not so subtle comment:

"Er, Bob, it's not a "threat of violence", it's a solemn promise... People of your mindset who would wish to enslave those who merely wish to be left alone"

ahhhh.. yes, wingnuttier. Such a strange land. I think Frank Rich captures it quite perfectly in his column today when he says,

The Palinist “real America” is demographically doomed to keep shrinking. But the emotion it represents is disproportionately powerful for its numbers. It’s an anger that Palin enjoyed stoking during her “palling around with terrorists” crusade against Obama on the campaign trail. It’s an anger that’s curdled into self-martyrdom since Inauguration Day.

Its voice can be found in the postings at a Web site maintained by the fans of Mark Levin, the Obama hater who is, at this writing, the No.2 best-selling hardcover nonfiction writer in America. “Bottomline, do you know of any way we can remove these idiots before this country goes down the crapper?” wrote one Levin fan. “I WILL HELP!!! Should I buy a gun?” Another called for a new American revolution, promising “there will be blood.”

These are the cries of a constituency that feels disenfranchised — by the powerful and the well-educated who gamed the housing bubble, by a news media it keeps being told is hateful, by the immigrants who have taken some of their jobs, by the African-American who has ended a white monopoly on the White House. Palin is their born avatar. She puts a happy, sexy face on ugly emotions, and she can solidify her followers’ hold on a G.O.P. that has no leaders with the guts or alternative vision to stand up to them or to her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/opinion/12rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[Ran]

"The Palinist “real America” is demographically doomed to keep shrinking."

Fact... It is the New York Times that is shrinking, along with CNN and NBC New Yorker and the rest of the dinomedia. Fox is growing, as has talk radio.

Fact... Self-described Conservatives are now, for the first time, the plurality in America, at roughly twice the number of self-described Liberals/Progressives, 40%/20%

Fact... the demographic shift has been fueled by Roe v Wade as you guys abort and "plan" your families into non-existence - what, 40 million abortions? Who are we to judge you on your sacrament of infant murder. By definition, it's only your kids being slaughtered, right?

Fact... Even when astro-turfing Tea Parties, Acorn and the SEIU are pulling out only 10% of the crowd. Your message is getting drowned.

Fact... No one on this site is calling for armed revolution. [I do agree with the idea that people should self-arm and teach their families how to defend themselves.] Armed revolution won't be necessary... Pay-back is coming at the polls. Pay-back, and roll back. It is the parasitism of the statist "Progressive" ideology that is in danger. Poor Slide... he will have to go get a real job flipping burgers. Awwwwww.

[SDN]

At least as far as Best Bud Ayers, calling for 25 million "enemies of the state" to be killed.

[SDN]

"powerful and well-educated" aren't the adjectives I'd apply to Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al. Of course, they do have that D in the description.... better than a Holiday Inn Express!

[Slide]

SDN uttered, ""powerful and well-educated" aren't the adjectives I'd apply to Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al. Of course, they do have that D in the description.... better than a Holiday Inn Express!"

SDN I'm confused by your post. You don't think Frank and Dodd are well educated? Barney Frank not only graduated from Harvard, he taught undergraduates there. Dodd is a member of the Connecticut bar.

Or is it that you don't think they are powerful? If you don't think they are powerful than why get your panties all bunched up over them? They are powerless and therefore irrelevant.

I never understood this type of nonsense. Hey, disagree all you want with their policies or positions but why do you guys persist in living in a Bizarro world where basic facts seem to elude you?

[Slide]

Ran in an effort to prove that demographics are working against the GOP states this bit of irrelevancy: "Fact... It is the New York Times that is shrinking, along with CNN and NBC New Yorker and the rest of the dinomedia. Fox is growing, as has talk radio."

errrr... yeah? so? The MSM is dying. I could give a shit less. That has nothing to do with the GOP's demographic problems. Wingnut shows always get high ratings. And now that they have an evil enemy in the White House I'm sure their rating will go up. See the right always is comfortable in the posture of being the victim - despite their controlling the levers of power for the last eight years. Irrelevant.

These are the demographics you should be worrying about spunky:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/gop-losses-span-nearly-demographic-groups.aspx

GOP Losses Span Nearly All Demographic Groups
Only frequent churchgoers show no decline in support since 2001
by Jeffrey M. Jones

"PRINCETON, NJ -- The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush's presidency in 2001, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline.

As was shown earlier, the GOP's loss in leaned support over this time is evident among nearly every subgroup. The losses are substantial among college graduates, which have shown a decline in GOP support of 10 points. (The losses are even greater -- 13 points -- among the subset of college graduates with postgraduate educations.) This may reflect in part Barack Obama's strong appeal to educated voters, a major component of his winning coalitions in both the Democratic primaries and the general election.

The Republican Party clearly has lost a lot of support since 2001, the first year of George W. Bush's administration. Most of the loss in support actually occurred beginning in 2005, after Hurricane Katrina and Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court -- both of which created major public relations problems for the administration -- and amid declining support for the Iraq war. By the end of 2008, the party had its worst positioning against the Democrats in nearly two decades.

The GOP may have stemmed those losses for now, as it does not appear to have lost any more support since Obama took office. But as the analysis presented here shows, the losses the GOP has suffered have come among nearly all demographic groups apart from some of the most ardent Republican subgroups."

But, I'm glad Fox is getting good ratings....

[Slide]

as far as this nonsense, "Fact... the demographic shift has been fueled by Roe v Wade as you guys abort and "plan" your families into non-existence - what, 40 million abortions? Who are we to judge you on your sacrament of infant murder. By definition, it's only your kids being slaughtered, right?"

I don't even have a clue as to what you are trying to say? I think that YOU believe that liberals have more abortions therefore the demographics will benefit the GOP???? is that what you are trying, incoherently, to say? Guess you don't realize it but you have it exactly ass-backwards (why is that not a surprise) and that actually conservative areas of the country have MORE abortion per capita then liberal areas of the country. Surprise surprise, hypocrisy yet once again with the MORAL FAMILY VALUES party.

http://www.publicchristian.com/index.php?p=734

RED-STATE / BLUE-STATE ABORTION RATES COMPARED:

All but one of the ten states with the LOWEST rates of abortion are considered “LIBERAL” :

Liberal 1 Massachusetts 2.4
Liberal 2 Connecticut 2.8
Liberal 3 New Jersey 3.0
Liberal 4 Rhode Island 3.2
Liberal 5 New York 3.3
Liberal 6 Pennsylvania 3.3
Liberal 7 Wisconsin 3.4
Conservative 8 North Dakota 3.4
Liberal 9 Maryland 3.5
Liberal 10 Minnesota 3.6

All but one of the Sixteen states with the HIGHEST rates of abortion are considered “CONSERVATIVE” :

Conservative 35 Texas 5.4
Conservative 36 Alaska 5.5
Liberal 37 Washington 5.6
Conservative 38 Mississippi 5.7
Conservative 39 Kentucky 5.8
Conservative 40 Arizona 5.8
Conservative 41 Florida 5.9
Conservative 42 New Mexico 6.0
Conservative 43 Idaho 6.2
Conservative 44 Alabama 6.2
Conservative 45 Indiana 6.6
Conservative 46 Wyoming 6.5
Conservative 47 Tennessee 6.6
Conservative 48 Oklahoma 6.7
Conservative 49 Arkansas 7.1
Conservative 50 Nevada 9.0

Damn, don't you just hate facts?

[Rob Crawford]

"SDN I'm confused by your post. You don't think Frank and Dodd are well educated? Barney Frank not only graduated from Harvard, he taught undergraduates there. Dodd is a member of the Connecticut bar. "

"Well educated" doesn't mean smart, well-meaning, or principled. Barney Frank is one of the most corrupt, venal, STUPID people in public service.

When will the left stop fetishizing the Ivy League? Barney Frank is 69 years old; that means his admission to Harvard was about 50 years ago -- what the hell does that have to do with the worth of his policies?

[Rob Crawford]

"So if Obama hand pics some lawyer, appoints him as legal counsel, and then that legal counsel gives him justification to confiscate everyone's handguns, within the "bounds" of the 2nd Amendment of course, you would be ok with that right? Because he had a legal ruling? Lol, ok. right"

No, you idiot, because the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land and its meaning is clear.

By all REPUTABLE analysis, the so-called "torture memos" were text-book examples of legal analysis. They looked at the laws on the books, analyzed them, and determined what limits they impose. The result was a policy that stayed within the limits of the law.

I get that you don't like the results. I get that you think the conclusions were wrong. Yet I also realize your party hasn't been able to poke any holes in the legal analysis, and have ALSO not bothered to change the laws to conform to what you think they should be.

[Slide]

"Well educated" doesn't mean smart, well-meaning, or principled. Barney Frank is one of the most corrupt, venal, STUPID people in public service."

Exactly. Well educated has nothing to do with Barney supposedly being, "the most corrupt, venal, stupid people in public service" or his "worth in politics". Being well educated has to do with someone's formal training it's not a value judgment moron. That is why your comments just don't make any sense.

BTW didn't Bush go to both Harvard and Yale? Trust me, no one is claiming he was smart, well-meaning or principled but he was "well-educated". See how it works punkie?

[Slide]

Bob Crawford you are embarrassing yourself once again:

"No, you idiot, because the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land and its meaning is clear."

Torture is against US Law as well under 18 U.S.C. § 2340.

Bizarro World Alert ! "By all REPUTABLE analysis, the so-called "torture memos" were text-book examples of legal analysis."

Reality check: There is a tremendous dispute about the quality and legal reasoning behind the torture memos. Some are even suggesting disbarment for the authors of the memos for their lack of quality. Of course I am sure anybody I site you will say doesn't fit into YOUR definition of reputable (that is why you used all caps I imagine) but the Federalist Society I think should meet your criteria no? They are an extremely conservative group of lawyers including Justice Roberts and Justice Alito I believe. They had a long scholarly debate over those memos. Hardly text-book examples of legal analysis judging by some of the back and forth.

http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.27/default.asp

Don't you just hate facts ?

[Troll Hunter]

"The Palinist “real America” is demographically doomed to keep..." growing, and your drowning-man thrashing rather illustrates how badly you feel it. Check your abortion "facts" a bit more closely... the state-by-state count masks the demographic slaughter at the county level, moron. It ain't the conservative-majority having the 'bortions, you puke... it's your liberal-minority pals in Texas and Alaska and Nevada and and and. Hint: Maybe, just maybe, that's why those states are "conservative" majority?

40% trending up, 20% static. Suck it.

Mr. Riehl, any way to put "slide" back in the tube? Not only is he a rather sloppy liar, his grasp of causal systems, um, ain't gonna get him past flipping burgers for a living.

[Lala]

The Left sees abortions as the way to get rid of the undesirable people.

Damian Thompson is Blogs Editor of the Telegraph Media Group.

What the hell did Ruth Bader Ginsburg mean when she linked abortion and eugenics?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100002972/what-the-hell-did-ruth-bader-ginsburg-mean-when-she-linked-abortion-and-eugenics/

[Bob]

"40% trending up, 20% static. Suck it."

Right. Now all you have to do is to figure out how a political movement that defines itself according to "thinkers" like Jonah Goldberg, and "leaders" like Sarah Palin, can do anything but continually embarrass itself in public. How about another photo op with Palin in front of turkeys being slaughter to totally capture the current state of conservative politics in this country. Even conservative commentators like David Brooks can't help bemoaning the complete lack of dignity among Republican figureheads. Republicans are a national joke. Trying to blame it on the liberals or the press, or flogging the same old culture war straw men, isn't going to work in the absence of real leadership or fresh ideas. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the conservatives are "full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing."

[Wil]

Bob

Gee,Bob,from the way you are stating it ,the people you are describing sounds more like Pelosi,Reid,Biden,Franks,Dodd,Feinstein,Boxer and of course,Obama. Projecting on your opponents reveal more about you than those you oppose .

[Bob]

"Projecting on your opponents reveal more about you than those you oppose."

Really? Did Pelosi just resign from office because she couldn't handle how mean the press was being to her? Were Biden and Dodd forced to publicly humiliate themselves at press conferences to tearfully confess to extramarital affairs? One of the main distinctions right now between liberals and conservatives seems to be the complete inability of conservatives to admit to basic facts. I guess it's fine if you want to pretend to yourselves that things are a certain way, but outside of your bubble nobody's buying the B.S. any more. And deep down, I think you realize that, which explain all of the over-wrought rhetoric we're hearing from your side about guns and the 2nd Amendment. If you can't have it your way, then just have a public melt-down or throw a temper tantrum.

[SDN]

Sarah Palin didn't either; if there was as easy a way to file all the JUSTIFIED ethics complaints against Pelosi as to file false ones against Sarah Palin, Pelosi would be under the jail.

[Ran]

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/07/a-warning-for-republican-party-a-third-way.html

For anyone who understands how our constitutional republic works, it's obvious that the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are mutually dependent. It is no mere accident that the nation with the most freedom of speech happens to be the same nation with the greatest protection of rights for self-defense and weapons ownership.

There is not a nation on this planet that can match us for the freedoms and responsibilities outlined in either of the first two amendments, let alone both combined. The Founding Fathers knew full well with the publication of their pamphlets that they were indeed risking their very lives. That fact, fresh in their memory, gave us those two amendments requiring the government to stay out of the way.

The freedom of speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom to own effective, deadly arms and to protect one's family, property and life are rights bestowed unto each by Providence. These rights are only protected by the first two amendment, not actually provided by them. That is an important distinction the Left constantly dissimulates.

___

"If you can't have it your way, then just have a public melt-down or throw a temper tantrum." Er, Bob, we had thought you were trying to dispel the "projection" accusation. [sigh] Look, I won't disagree with Hunter's point, but I think it was off-topic. The whole point of the first two amendments is to make the likelihood of "public tantrum" moot.

Firstly, one has the freedom to speak, to publish, to assemble in Peace and to redress. That take a lot of pressure off by permitting ideas to be hashed-out.

Secondly, if and only if aggressive tyranny begins imposition, such action will be mightily expensive.

The point being, we will see you guys at the polls. Good luck to your (dwindling) team, cuz you are skrood, man. Phuk-ked big-time...

[Slide]

Troll Hunter with trembling voice asks daddy, "Mr. Riehl, any way to put "slide" back in the tube? Not only is he a rather sloppy liar, his grasp of causal systems, um, ain't gonna get him past flipping burgers for a living."

ahhhh.... the tough troll hunter wants me removed because wingnuts apparently can't stand opposing viewpoints. Here I am, a small minority on a right wing blog, greatly outnumbered, and the little troll hunter wants me banished. Rather revealing isn't it? Can't have any competing views in wingnutland apparently. Please daddy, please make that bad Slide go away. Man up and fight my comments with facts if you can, rather than trying to get me removed so you can keep on lying with impunity.

[Slide]

"40% trending up, 20% static. Suck it."

Al Franken sworn in as 60th Dem Senator. Double suck it.