The American Spectator

Booger| 1.14.11 @ 6:12AM

Advance copy of Jeremiah Wright sermon for January 16, 2011:

Brothers and sisters, as we gather here today, we must consider the cancer of hatred that consumes this country, we must face the cancer of hatred that consumes this country and we must defeat the cancer of hatred that eats away at this country! Now, you may be asking yourselves, how can we defeat the hatred that is festering like an infected boil stuck on the end of your nose? There is only one way, my brothers and sisters, that we can defeat hatred, and that is with MORE HATRED! That's right, you heard me, we have got to OUT-HATE THE HATERS!

Sometimes a fire gets out of control, and it burns and burns and burns up everything, just like that cow of Mrs. O'Leary's that burned down this fine city that one time (and you KNOW that them O'Learys were white folks!) and it gets so bad there is only one way to fight it: You have to FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE! Hear me, my brothers and sisters! You cannot overcome evil with good, you have to overcome evil with even stronger evil! That's in the Bible! Don't bother looking, I already looked it up for you, just give me an AMEN! Can I get an AMEN!

Okay, here's how it is. Out there we got the Tea-Baggers, we got Sarah Palin, we got Rush Limbaugh, we got Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Fox News and a whole new bunch of white devils who even have a couple of Uncle Toms taking Congress away from our beloved Democrat Party! And how did they do it? Through HATE, that's how. They're hate is killing people in Arizona. It's killing people in Afghanistan. It's killing people in Iraq. It's killing people in North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Lybia, Venezuela and Russia! And if we don't get our own hate on, it's going to kill us too! We have got to have a stronger HATE than their hate. We have to get rid of this foolish notion of loving our enemies. We have got to HATE our enemies, because their chickens are coming home to roost! AMEN and AMEN! And we have got to take those chickens by the feet and beat those white devils and ofays to death with them!

Brothers and sisters, I have seen the face of SATAN! It's true, it's true! Satan don't live in no Hell no more, she got OUT and she is up here! She runs all around Alaska and kills caribous and mooses and what-not and eats them up right there! What kind of craziness is that? How can our Brother the President, our dear Brother and My Very Own Son in Our Gospel, expect to overcome a She-Devil Satan who kills Grizzly Bears and Eats Them in Alaska? Only with HATE, that's how!

Why did this crazy killer kill all those folks in Arizona? Because the She-Devil known as Palin taught him to hate, that's why! Well, we have got to hate back even more! Hate your enemies! Punish your enemies! Get in their faces and bring a gun to the fight! We know about the Chicago Way! Can I get an AMEN!

So brothers and sisters, I ask you, is your hate strong enough? Can you hate the blue-eyed devils in all their forms and guises? Not just the crazy looking ones like Palin, but the nice looking ones too? Can you hate even the little blue-eyed children? Because that's what we have to do, that's in the Bible, can I get an AMEN for our HATE!

So in closing, my brothers and sisters, we can only overcome evil with even stronger evil, we must HATE our enemies, we must persecute those who would persecute us, we must revile those who would revile us, we must slander and defame those who would withstand us! We must take two eyes for every eye they take from us! We must do unto them before they get the chance to do unto us! THAT'S IN THE BIBLE! CAN I GET AN AMEN! The time is not only past to try to love our enemies, that time was never here! Don't believe what you read in some honkey's so-called Bible. Don't read it if it was translated by a blue-eyed devil! Don't believe it if it's some perversion pawned off on us by some ofay King of England! No, we got our own scriptures, and in MY Bible I read all these things. Don't ask me just yet who gave me this version, we'll talk about that later. Just read it and believe it! AND HATE ANYBODY WHO DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOU, BECAUSE THEIR CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST

http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/

wodiej| 1.14.11 @ 7:38AM

omg...LMAO! That was classic.

Ron| 1.16.11 @ 9:46PM

I agree. It is classic.

I read a comment on a Politico article where the reader said that since Jared Loughner had taken a photo of himself in a RED, not BLUE ladies thong, that should be proof of his belief in the right wing politics that led him to shoot a Democrat congresswoman!

I once asked my neighbor to lend me his shovel. He said he couldn't because he was making soup. I asked what that had to do with lending me his shovel. He replied, "Nothing! If I don't want to lend it to you, any excuse will do!" Seems to me that is the same kind of reasoning Progressives use to justify their beliefs.

Mike| 1.14.11 @ 9:00AM

LOL! As they say, 'there is a little truth in every joke'.

Dave| 1.14.11 @ 10:27AM

Over this past week while listening to the usual suspects pitching their lame attempts to make some political hay with this tragedy in Arizona by trying to link broadcasters like Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin (among others) to the event, I was drawn back to a simplier time in my life when the spirit of personal responsibility was a part of our daily lives. Sadly, yet predictibly ... the Left in this fractured land has decided to tear apart that spirit and attmpt to assign "blame" to those who would simply disagree with them. Yep, back in that simpler day, some of our icons were named Ozzie, Mr. Cleaver and ... Mr. R0gers. And for kids like us who enjoyed the simpler joys of chewin' on a square of pink bubble gum, the Spirit of Pud reminds us all of ... a less confrontational day ...

And so, whatever happened to ... Pud?

When I was a kid growing up in the San Fernando Valley during the '50s, we used to peddle our bikes over to George's liquor store on the corner, while dragging a Radio Flyer wagon behind us and trade in our collection of pop bottles for a couple pennies each. Either that or we'd cash-out for a few Mars bars or down payment on a Nesbitt's Orange Soda. Other times when the bottles were scarce, we'd just hand over the few we had in the wagon in exchange for some penny cubes of Dubble Bubble chewing gum. Back in the day, five pop bottles (at two-cents a pop) could get you ten chews. Not a bad haul. These days, homeless guys scoop them up and trade 'em out for a bottle of screw cap vino at the neighborhood mini mart. The concept is about the same, but the ol' Radio Flyer has been replaced by a Safeway shopping cart. I guess it holds more stuff.

For those a bit beyond the post-Beatles' years, pink Dubble Bubble used to have a small cartoon panel wound around the gum inside the wrapper. One of the main characters was a fat, goofy little kid who always wore a two color beanie and a stripped red and white shirt. For those of us who remember dragging that Radio Flyer around in '54 ... the kid's name was Pud.

Sometime over the next few years, Pud was sent packing. Probably gone because of his weight image, that and a snickering issue with the name. Later, his place in the panel was replaced by a more properly weight conscious kid. But the basic beanie and shirt combo remained.

It's been a lot of decades since I bought a pack of that pink bubble gum. And I sometimes wonder -- whatever became of Pud? It's never been fully confirmed but rumor has it that after he was eased off the gum wrapper, he ventured out and opened a Bob's Big Boy restaurant in Burbank and, later, went into televison after changing his name to Chris Matthews. Either way ... the spirit of Pud lives at The Peacock.

VBMax| 1.14.11 @ 10:41AM

Dave,
You just sent me into nostalgic bliss with your post.

Alan Brooks| 1.14.11 @ 12:23PM

This will blow over soon; it is merely about a little Sirhan Sirhan punk, Loughner--
Communist or a KKK member, a killer is a killer.
Loughner's type just wants to kill, and it doesn't matter why.

Put him in a cage, and feed him bread and water.

Jack Bauer| 1.14.11 @ 12:31PM

"Communist or a KKK member, a killer is a killer."

Except conservatives don't excuse the KKK.

While shameless braindead leftists walk around wearing the malignant face of a dead commie mass murderer (and certified sociopath) on their T-Shirts.

Alan Brooks| 1.14.11 @ 1:43PM

Don't forget the po' wittle innocent lambie-pie Mumia-- all he did was shoot a police officer.

Mumia WOULDN"T HURT A FLY.

Alan Brooks| 1.14.11 @ 2:06PM

...just look at how dishonest the Commies are, there is a zero percent chance this guy is innocent:

http://www.workers.org/2010/us/mumia_1125/

Alan Brooks| 1.14.11 @ 2:09PM

Get this; Workers World titles the piece,
"We Are All Mumia"

Yikes! if we are, then we are TOAST.

Todd S| 1.14.11 @ 8:54PM

Looks like Alan is taking his meds again because he actually makes some sense for a change.

Alan Brooks| 1.15.11 @ 9:45PM

Yeah, Todd, when I agree with you, I make sense;
when we don't agree, you don't think I don't make sense. If someone (no, I don't mean you, Todd) at AS voted for Dubya in both 2000 and '04, then he tries to validate it by writing that everyone who didn't vote for Bush was a socialist.

That way he feels better-- and feelgood is what conservatism is all about, right?

Todd S| 1.16.11 @ 10:28PM

You said some really terrible stuff earlier this week Alan so nothing to do whether with I agreed with you or not because it was just pure n0n-sense. It has to do with whether you actually make a coherent point or not. Feelgood is what liberalism is about, conservatism is based on reality and common sense.

UFO UFOS| 3.2.12 @ 4:33AM

Mumia WOULDN"T HURT A FLY.UFO

Appleby| 1.14.11 @ 6:48AM

There is a viciously anti-American article in this weeks Macleans Magazine (the pale Canadian copy of Newsweek) about the Arizona Massacre. It contains all the usual invective and derogatory commentary, and plenty of self-congratulatory rhetoric about how much better Canadians are in every way. The sad thing is that Canada has become so MultiCulti that the only identity it has left is *We Are Not Americans.*

There is nothing at all about the Practice Run by a foreign national this week who tested the bomb disposal unit by twice leaving fake bombs and an abandoned car near the CSIS (Canadian CIA) offices down on the waterfront. The second time he was caught and tasered, which means he will get a groveling apology and a government cheque; the packages were blown up by a bomb disposal robot and gathered a brief flurry of interest before everyone went back to excoriating the Americans.

Ned| 1.14.11 @ 12:00PM

"...Macleans Magazine (the pale Canadian copy of Newsweek)..."

My God that must be truly pathetic! The last copy of Newsweek I saw had maybe 50 pages, and was half advertising for Ensure, AARP, and GM...

Waapiti| 1.14.11 @ 7:04PM

Yes, Canada doesn't have vile murderers and rapists. When you cross that invisible line that separates the U.S. from Canada, all evil magically disappears. That is why they are spending their all-important time, being as good and great as they are, trying to forbid the playing of the Dire Straits song, "Money for Nothing" on their radio stations because it violates their "human rights" laws (the phrase "faggot" in the song is what they are referring to). Evil in the form of murder and mayhem doesn't exist in Canada. Otherwise, how would they be able to be concerned about more important human rights violations like banning a rock song from the airwaves? That's what "multiculturalism" and uber-toleration is doing for them. Just wait boys and girls, if we let the lefties in the U.S. get an even more firm hold in government just like the lefties in Canada have had for quite some time, you too will be an American Canadian.

Todd S| 1.14.11 @ 9:07PM

Kind of ironic because "Money For Nothing" might as well be the slogan for the progressive commies being they want to take money and property from the productive and give it to those who do nothing. Are they going to try to ban all Rush songs that were inspired by Ayn Rand like Anthem and Something for Nothing (you can't get) while they are at it?

The advantage Canada has over us is that they dont share a border with Mexico and they have quite a large educated Asian population. I went up last month to Toronto to take the CFA exam and at more than half of the test takers were Asian. If you want to see the difference that makes, go visit Southern California (or Arizona of course) and then go up to Vancouver after that. Nothing personal against Mexicans but it is the difference between educated skilled immigrants and uneducated non-skilled immigrants.

PolishKnight| 1.16.11 @ 5:22PM

Gentlemen, it puzzles me why there aren't more non-skilled welfare recipient illegal immigrants in Canada. Yes, it is another crossing of the border from Mexico, but really. If illegals can get as far as Chicago, why not take a rowboat over the border for unlimited welfare benefits? What is Canada doing "right" that the USA is not?

I really want to know because this is a neat $128,000 question. If we can find a way to make Canada VERY appetizing to the welfare state recipients we have in the states, that is the end of their faux "tolerance" and "diversity."

Of course, even without knowing that secret, Canada (and France and Sweden's) days of welfare states with limited immigration are numbered.

kenneth| 1.16.11 @ 8:53PM

something for nothing is dire straits.not rush.

Todd S| 1.16.11 @ 10:30PM

Money for Nothing is Dire Straits

Appleby| 1.16.11 @ 9:36AM

The truly Canadian thing about this was that it took them TWENTY FIVE YEARS to ban the song -- and they did it after ONE COMPLAINT by a woman from Newfoundland.

Anthony| 1.14.11 @ 7:08AM

This is the exact senerio that the left is hoping for and can't wait to exploit.
One of the many voices on the left over the past several days was quoted as saying, "maybe this time it wasn't the Tea Party, but next time it will be."
The left is waiting for another opportunity to exploit; it will happen, and if not soon enough for the left, they will simply make it up out of whole cloth. This is how the radical left operates.
These are desperate times for the left, and we all know how dangerous desperate people are.

SonOfSam| 1.14.11 @ 9:47AM

The best way to defeat an ambush is to hit them first, hit them hard and keep hitting them until they go down and stay down.
We need to start by urging EVRYONE we know to stop buying or subscribing to ANY publication that is in any way even remotely connected to those who want to kill our freedom of speech. Any magazine, newspaper or newsletter that is part of any media empire that has elements actively supporting the "fairness" doctrine, net "neutrality", or laws that will criminalize criticism of elected or un-elected government officials must be boycotted.
We also need to begin targeting their advertisers: if you want our business, you need to stop supporting the Thought Police pigs trying to shut down talk radio, Fox news, Tea Party and 9/12 rallies, and ultimately, anyne of us who doesn't obediently march to the "liberal" tune

America will never be free until every ObamaNazi traitor is in the ground, in prison or in exile.

MikeD| 1.16.11 @ 8:08PM

Remember dan blather and his fake documents about George Bush's national guard service... lefties will do ANYTHING to gain, and ruthlessly hold power over those of us they deem intellectually inferior. The horrible things the leftmedia said and wrote about President Bush could not be said today now that we cannot criticize barry the muslim because disagreeing with him would be RACIST! When dems/libs get power, they are even MORE blatant about their double standard; ie., Everything THEY do is good; everything WE do is evil, wicked, bad, nasty, terrible, etc...

I doubt very much that the United States of America would have ever existed if the philosophical ancestors of the libtards during the 1770s had been able to enforce the kinds of restrictions on our Founding Fathers that the lefties want to inflict on us. Of course, they would be exempted from any such restrictions. Every day krugman and his fellow left-thugs try their best to muzzle us as we're trying to drag America back to what was founded under our Constitution is one day closer to our total destruction. There ARE absolutes in the world.

Remember what Ronald Reagan said about the Cold War: "We won; they lost." The leftmorons among us are desperately clinging to a philosophy and political system that has been proven time and time again not to work. We're right; they're wrong. That's it.

Ed Wallis| 1.14.11 @ 7:14AM

Mr. Paulette writes, "...singular actions do not vilify a group...." but does not define/qualify this in any way to explain the difference between Loughner's actions and those of Islamic terrorists. Such sloppy writing can backfire (oh! a violent metaphor. egads!).

wodiej| 1.14.11 @ 7:34AM

I think this is nothing more than a revealing look at how utterly desperate liberals are. For the first time in a long time (maybe ever), they had full control of the gov't and the American people soundly rejected their policies.

With conservatives controlling the House, we at least severely crimp their style and will basically tie the Presidents hands on moving anymore of his agenda forward. I can't imagine what he is thinking or what strategy his advisors are cooking up.

Stephanie| 1.14.11 @ 10:40AM

I just read on the Daily Beast that his State of the Union speech will be continuation of Wednesday nights speech, (campaign kick off). Civility must be the order of the day, kindness, love and kumbya. Now that he doesn't have total control of the government we all of a sudden have to be nice. Well, I don't want my representative to be nice. Do your job Congressman Witman or you will be voted out next time.

Lady in Red| 1.15.11 @ 5:21AM

His strategy is to get the media dogs barking at the Tea Partiers and Conservatives before directly attacking Palin who is his biggest threat.

Ret. Marine| 1.14.11 @ 7:45AM

I have a sense that you wrote this article in hopes of speaking some thing new. NEWSFLASH, both islam and the degenerates ( progressive mental patients called democrats) sucking the lifeblood out of this country have one thing in common, they are both cowards of the truth. Sorry but if you have nothing better to do than to re-write old news, while preaching to the choir, I have two acres that are in need of help. Since I am a disabled veteran with limited resources, I could use the help. We all know who the leaches of others hard works are and who, although never having stepped a foot on an ivy league cesspool known today as a university, hold common sense with great regards.
The moosleman, their demon-god allah and the lefts manner of civility go hand in hand without any explanation on your part. Those of us who are in this culture war fight have long know the two operate only for and the use of the ignorant masses consumption. Why don't you just come out and say, the leftist, elitist, progressive, mental disorder adherents, the non thinkers for themselves need an advocate for their ignorance and be done with it. and who's idea of this political theatre by obamas Bin Lyn was that performance issued for and by, tee-shirts and all? What I would recommend you research is, "did the American taxpayers" pay for this showboating while pretending to honor the victims of last weeks tragedy? Or is theft by way of the bully pulpit just another thing we are suppose to let go unchallenged because, as usual, the leftoids think they are once again pulling the political wool over our lying eyes?

MikeD| 1.16.11 @ 8:12PM

RET. MARINE;
I must take issue with one of your points. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "RETIRED" MARINE. Service is forever; as long as there is life in the body. If I had limbs that worked I'd be proud to help; but I suspect your limited use of limbs might have come from the same place mine did.
SEMPER FI

Deborah D| 1.17.11 @ 5:56AM

Bless you both for your service and your sacrifice. My brother was a Marine and spent time in Vietnam. He came back safe and sound, thank God. He too, still considers himself a Marine. I'll say it for him, "Semper Fi."

martin j smith| 1.14.11 @ 8:21AM

Now that obama has made his"wonderful speech " ( not my view btw ) lets see have the call for civility goes. Lets start with Observing his behavior --that is Obama--the cool man who lectues us on civility.
Lets see what happens when the House votes to Repeal ObamaCare.. Lets see how "Civil" Obama and his supporters get.
My bet would be that " Civil" will be as in "Civil War"--but I am open to surprises.

Stephanie| 1.14.11 @ 8:22AM

Republicans have ardently repelled accusations that Loughner acted on conservative principles, but they ought not to have had reason for such defensiveness."

The conservatives are ALWAYS on the defensive. Can we have a change guys?

Lady in Red| 1.15.11 @ 5:23AM

Conservatives have been on the offensive which explains the recent election results in their favor.

Groad| 1.14.11 @ 8:29AM

The premise that the shooter could have been a Tea Party conservative is invalid/false to begin with. End of discussion.

Lady in Red| 1.15.11 @ 5:26AM

The public needs to be reminded continually, up until the 2012 election, of the media's knee-jerk reaction to this event so as to expose their deceit.

Louis Jenkins| 1.14.11 @ 8:43AM

Thank goodness the majority of American people, those who think for themselves, are not buying this load of "hopey changie". Yes, we are in a fight.

"We war against principalities that exist in high places, that sacrifice in the lofty mountains," (I paraphrase here). Do not give into evil, but proceed with all intent against it. Dress in the "whole amour" of God and truth. Only by being honest, truthful, and clinging to the Bible and, yes, guns if need be, may we overcome.

As Booger spoke the left must out hate the haters (us). I do not hate the congregation of Rev. Wright's church. I do believe they, and their brothern every where including Obama, think they have one over the Conservatives. They do not. Their lies and falsifications run rampant. A blind man can perceive their methods.

But if I can cut a stick a foot longer to keep them separate from me, I will do it.

Derek Leaberry| 1.14.11 @ 8:49AM

Republicans and conservatives(even some at this site) are already in line ready to grovel even with the perpetrator being an apolitical lunatic with no ties to conservatism or the Republican Party. Perhaps Barack Obama should be the Republican candidate for president in 2012, the parties should be merged and Nancy Pelosi should be made Speaker, taxes should be raised in order to spend more money, homosexual marriage should be made the law of the land, abortions should be given full funding, and the 22nd Amendment should be repealed to allow President Obama to be re-elected as long as he so desires.

Mike D.| 1.14.11 @ 9:05AM

The marxists only attack what they fear and not what the loathe. Palin, Tea Party, talk radio, Fox, Limbaugh, Beck and everybody in between ARE hurting them(read 2010 elections) and ARE revealing them for what they are to more and more people. They HAVE to muzzle free speech, its probably the #1 objective on the list and the control of dialogue, terminology, and the addition of more Orwellian "hate speech" type restrictions is paramount. These godless statists can only achieve their ultimate goals by terminating the voices of opposition. Its the classic revolutionary response. Of course its all bundled into the "for our own good" fuzzy wrapping. Sadly enough of the Republicans will once again cower and submit and the left will achieve some of their goals. Its the old game. Turn their media lapdogs loose and the gutless Republicans run and hide. Not this time. The voices of opposition are not going anywhere and the jig is up. Also, if I hear that word "vitriol" from the news media one more time I'm going to vomit. Its getting overused leftists, at least be more creative with the propaganda next time.

Mike D.| 1.14.11 @ 9:14AM

In follow up. Comrade Chairman's and the lefts tired old game of "I'm above all this, great uniter" speeches while his toadies in the media and government do the dirty work for him tactic is wearing thin as well. Saul must have forgot to write that chapter about "getting beat at your own game".

Meg H| 1.14.11 @ 3:51PM

"The marxists only attack what they fear and not what the loathe"

The left, as well as the right, are a part of a political spectrum. To equate the entire left with marxists would be as to equate the entire right with fascists. Careful, in political rhetoric the threshold of appearing ignorant is low.

Todd S| 1.14.11 @ 9:25PM

Fascism has never been a cause of the right, Mussolini and Hitler were men of the left and only differed from the communists by their nationalism and methods of controlling industry. There is a reason Mussolini was idolized by leftist, that is a stone cold fact of history. How do you distinguish the left as it stands today from the principles of Marxism? As Obama told Joe the plumber, redistribution of wealth is good for everyone. That was Obama letting his guard down and showing his true red colors because only Marxists actually believe that. If you think otherwise, you are wrong.

To me, the left as it is today as represented by Obama are a combination of Marxist and Fascist beliefs minus the nationalism. Seeking to redistribute the wealth as they see fit but not outright owning the means of production (only when they see fit to put the "capitalist" in line and to benefit the unions, think GM) but to control it for their own political purposes. That is what Hitler and Mussolini did with industry, think of that whenever you see one of those old VW buggies which was a product of Hitler's Germany. Any other history lessons you are in need of?

Mike D.| 1.15.11 @ 10:51AM

Ignorance of what Marxism, collectivism, and the rest of the leftism's are and having it right in front of your eyes and making no bones about what it is is truly ignorance. This group now in power and some of those in the Republican party are what they are. Hitler adopted and favored many facets of Communism, but because it was a jew(Marx) who put the concepts of Communism from his own mind in with those who introduced similar principals before him is why Hitler never outright accepted the label and in fact persecuted Communists as rivals to his power. As far as the present concerning free speech and the lefts obsession with both controlling it and in some degrees eliminating it, thats a fact. This is a fact. Communism CANNOT live and thrive in a free speech environment because its an untruth and a lie and those who espouse it and advocate it are in fact liers. Any individuals who attack the principals of communism, statism, or collectivism HAVE to be stifled and silenced and thats exactly whats going on here. Constitutionalists are not the ones who introduced "hate speech" or "political correctness" the left did, its what they HAVE to do. So eliminating words from the vocabulary or demonizing those who practice free speech as "vitriolic haters" who espouse violence like they did with Palin is right out of the left's playbook. Don't matter what the truth is. So whats next? Criminalizing those who have the right to criticize government by introducing a "politcal hate speech" law that effectively stops debate? How about reintroducing the "fairness" doctrine. Of course it would be the governments job to determine what the definition of fairness is wouldn't it? When the rights of individuals and the people of the country cease to be "God given" and become subject to what the government determines they are then you have crossed the threshold into tyranny and we are on the border.
Obama is a marxist, he surrounds himself with avowed marxists, his family are marxist sympathizers, his actions politically are marxist oriented in nature and he was nutured and tutured and mentored by marxists throughtout his life.

Todd S| 1.15.11 @ 4:21PM

You added to what I said quite well Mike D. It would help to put it in a couple paragraphs is all, Ken does a good job of spacing and being easy to read.

kenneth| 1.16.11 @ 9:04PM

fascist were the left[government control of everything]. a common misperception by those on the left who never want to claim their own.

MikeD| 1.16.11 @ 8:41PM

Maybe its time the Republicans take a different look at the current situation. The lefties who became emboldened by their first victory when they managed to kill millions of poor people in south-east asia after we slithered out of Vietnam; learned their first important lesson: Scream loud enough and the Republicans will cower in the corner. Of course, the fact that the whole war in Vietnam was a gift from JFK and LBJ; through the 'good offices' of the democratic party, has been conveniently lost in the history as taught by american teachers under the control of their unions.

Then, all through the 70s, 80s, and 90s, a procession of democrats in congress and the White House initially piusly bleated about the 'right of affordable housing' as they proceeded to build in a guaranteed collapse of our housing market and, eventually, our whole economy.

The next nail in the coffin of what older Americans thought of as the "party of the little guy" was the succession of liars, draft dodgers, traitors, and foreign citizens; beginning with bubba the rapist, then to algor the liar and charlaten; on to kerry the traitor who met with our enemy in uniform during a time of war; and now on to barry who refuses to even tell us who he is.

This group of miscreants, liars, propagandists, and who-knows-what-else deserve no respect or even any recognition as a real political party. They threw that all way when they decided to become the "Hate America" party.

We have no choice but to raise the temperature. Way out there in the dark is a bomb waiting to explode on all of us; helpfully built by our own George W Bush when he caved in to the lefties and signed "Hate Crimes" legislation. That is a nasty bomb that Hitler used to muzzle, and then destroy, his enemies. This is not a Sunday afternoon "Social"; it is a "Life and Death" struggle for the survival of our Country. The lefties/dems are intentionally trying to destroy our country and us along with it. Does anybody out there feel that dying because barry's death panel tells us we can't be treated is NOT an act of murder; willful and intentional?

We live in Florida, and one of our main streets is lined with empty auto dealerships that were closed because they were owned by Republicans. Think barry and his thugs won't run over us whenever they get the power? Think again. They want us worrying about nasty words while they're planning nasty deeds.

kenneth| 1.16.11 @ 9:14PM

well said miked,this is not a sunday afternoon get together.these people are trying to destroy this country,i hope we don't lose sight of what their true objective is. worrying about whether our words are divisive should be the least of our worries.

kenneth| 1.16.11 @ 9:15PM

well said miked,this is not a sunday afternoon get together.these people are trying to destroy this country,i hope we don't lose sight of what their true objective is. worrying about whether our words are divisive should be the least of our worries.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.14.11 @ 9:21AM

Justin,
I second the thoughts of our Retired Marine above.
You had an opportunity to publish an article that would break some new ground.....and you muffed it.
Folks,
Had I published an article here, it would have zeroed in on the future... the near future.

There is no question in my mind that among the millions of Americans who have seen their futures evaporate, and seen their dreams crushed...one or more of them are going to "lose it".

Some of them very likely will be tea partiers, or otherwise identified as "conservatives".

In fact, I am amazed at the restraint that has been universally self-imposed on our side to date.

Can it continue?.....across the board as it has?

The odds really are long aren't they?

The communists, (pardon the shorthand), are going to try to accelerate their agenda in their short remaining term of power.
I fully expect that if somehow, we conservatives can keep our hands and the hands of millions of brothers "empty" it truly will be a gift of God... a miracle if you will.
I also expect a "false flag" attack will have to be employed by the communists themselves.

There is no question that they will pounce now is there?
Be alert. Keep your cool. Just maybe our new congress critters can help our country survive.
www.texassaidno.com

George True| 1.14.11 @ 9:47AM

Ken, you may very well be right about false flag attacks in the months to come. We already saw this during the health care non-debate, when leftists vandalized the offices of some of their own politicos and unions in the hopes of pinning it on the tea party.

One thing I have noticed this week is false flag postings here at TAS and elsewhere. Someone masquerading as a conservative saying we need to get rid of all the blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, homos, etc. Let us all be vigilant to such things and call them out early and often.

Jack in the Midwest| 1.14.11 @ 9:34AM

This artical and the comments after are my feelings as well. Someday some nut from our side will do somehing. To hell with being defensive. Mrs Palin has been subjected to many thousands of threats and many millions of hateful internet posts in the last 2+ years. When is the left going to held accountable for all the hate it spewes?

Mike D.| 1.14.11 @ 9:59AM

Palin has more balls than 90% of the so-called Republicans. She put it right back in their faces.
That is one person the leftists absolutely HATE and HATE everything she stands for. And, they are scared to death of her. Make no mistake about it, she is target #1 and always will be. This is just going to get more vicious as time goes by. The only defense they have is to lie, propagandize, and lie some more. In the neds it good. They have finally been stripped of their fuzzy warm sheeps clothing and revealed as what they are. Morally, spiritually, truthfully, and politically bankrupt. That is a good thing. They are out in the open for all to see, or "outed" as the term goes.

Wayne | 1.14.11 @ 12:52PM

I am coming to the conclusion that the only people who hate Palin more than the left are the Establishment Republicans.

Wayne | 1.14.11 @ 12:52PM

I am coming to the conclusion that the only people who hate Palin more than the left are the Establishment Republicans.

butterfly| 1.14.11 @ 2:03PM

I think you're correct Wayne. She frightens the hell out of those old white guys.

post*tenebras*lux| 1.15.11 @ 6:37AM

Mike D. If you will allow some indulgence. I read this short paragraph the yesterday which describes also what you said: " Ivan Pavlov, the famous Russion physiologist, once taught his dogs to jump to the right when they saw a circle and to the left when they saw an oval ---- all with rewards. Then he slowly began to merge the circle into an oval to the point where the dogs couldn't tell the difference. The dogs eventually went mad. Is this not where moral relativism is bound to lead us, with no fixed reference point for distinguishing what is right or wrong in sexuality, genetics, politics, economics, or even in matters of law and justice?"

Appleby| 1.14.11 @ 9:39AM

The answer is not to call them names. The answer is to make fun of them.

Liberals love to be vilified; that allows them to take the higher ground in spirit at least. They cannot stand to be laughed at and not taken seriously.

Its time to stop concentrating all the humour in the country on sex, and start concentrating it on making fun of liberals. Laughter is the best medicine -- and the best ammunition.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.14.11 @ 9:50AM

Appleby,
.........The answer to WHAT?

What specifically will making "fun" of them accomplish at this late date?

Appleby| 1.14.11 @ 1:53PM

It is the answer to the problem of keeping them from monopolizing the airwaves, for one thing.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.15.11 @ 9:23AM

OK, Appleby,
point well taken. I especially enjoy how you and Booger do it.

Bob K.| 1.14.11 @ 10:33AM

This is an excellent observation. It is largely the reason for Rush Limbaugh's success and it reduces liberals to stammering incoherence.

Alas, not many people have this talent, but we should encourage popping the balloons of these stuff shirted, stiff necked political puritans who resemble urban and suburban parodies of Grant Wood's "American Gothic."

Dred| 1.14.11 @ 11:03AM

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

I submit that 'Appleby' is a Soros funded communist muslim sleeper agent attempting to poison the pure well of conservative thought here with his transparently Alinskyite strategies. Listen to him at your peril.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 1:46PM

DRed,

I thought you were "unfamiliar" with Alinsky?
Were you lying?

DRed| 1.14.11 @ 3:29PM

No, I was shooting straight (if you'll forgive my violent rhetoric). But you encouraged me to look them up.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 3:51PM

Good for you, DRed. That shows progress and growth.

Now, you do realize that Alinsky was an ends justify the means type, right? He was an enemy of freedom.

Shrillary the Hut wrote her college thesis on Alinsky. Chris Matth-spews seems to like him a lot, he called Saul a "hero."

Alinsky dedicated Rules for Radicals to Lucifer, by the way.

DRed| 1.14.11 @ 4:26PM

I know nothing about the man himself, other than that he's dead. I read a list of his rules on the internet a couple days ago. I wrote my college thesis on Syngman Rhee-does that mean I live my life according to the rules of a south korean strongman?

The thing about those rules, is they're really broad. So you can pretty much call everyone involved in politics Alinskyite. Appleby advocates Alinskyite tactics-is she a leftist and an enemy of freedom?

Milton's Lucifer? Or the red guy with the pointy horns?

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 5:32PM

DRed,

No, we are just catching up to the left. We are no longer "bringing a knife to a gun fight."

And, here is the dedication, in full: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer"

DRed| 1.14.11 @ 5:49PM

So is using Alinskyite tactics good or bad? Or does it depend on who is using them? The Tea Party seems prety Alinskyite.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 7:17PM

DRed,

They are bad when used against those who are interested in an honest debate.

They are required against those who don't know how to argue without using them themselves, constantly. Like most democrats, or those on MSDNC.

DRed| 1.14.11 @ 7:35PM

By any means necessary, eh?

I'm off for the night-have yourself a nice weekend.

Nick| 1.15.11 @ 12:34PM

DRed,

No, not by any means necessary. Lying is wrong. Calumny is wrong.

But, when conservatives are ridiculed, we will snark back. When we are attacked, we must defend ourselves.

I will have a nice weekend, DRed. My latest nephew is being Christened into the Catholic Church today. My siter and brother-in-law's eighth child!

You, also, have a good weekend.

Appleby| 1.14.11 @ 1:55PM

I'm a girl. A Republican, Catholic girl. With a "Who is John Galt?" t-shirt. And I have been told I am very funny.

Stephanie| 1.14.11 @ 2:05PM

I love your posts as they are always well thought out and to the point.
And I bet you are funny!

Bob K.| 1.15.11 @ 9:20AM

"I submit...... ....to poison the pure well of conservative thought here..."!

Dred, I love it! You have the talent!

Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 10:13AM

According to The Left, he was a Tea party, conservative, right wing, Palinite, etc., etc. Facts never matter when there is political advantage to be gained. Remember, to The Left everything is relative, there is no Truth.

Stephanie| 1.14.11 @ 11:23AM

Sounds like New Age garbage. There is no truth, there is no good or evil. There is only.......

Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 1:32PM

Absolutely. The Left rejects 2500 years of Western Civilization and seeks to discover some new path. Moral equivilance and moral relativism are the results.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 5:01PM

2500 years? How do you figure?

And, you seriously don't think that our morals have changed relative to our contexts in that amount of time? I'd say we've PROGRESSed quite nicely, though there is still some work to be done to make this world a better place, despite crazy Christians pushing their book down everyone's throats.

Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 6:20PM

A cinvienient round number. Socrates, Plato, et al circa 500 BC. ( I know, I know, Socrates d. 399 bc) Remember Western Civ?

Conventions and behavior might change over time, morals only perhaps, but Truth remains absolute. Moral relativism notwithstanding. Acceptable does not mean Moral.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 6:56PM

Most of those principles, regarding things like cold blooded murder and thievery, are universal beliefs that have existed in cultures around the world predating western influences.

Social conservatives in this country seem to think they have a monopoly on dictating strangers lives by claiming that their beliefs are "absolute," using as evidence the fact that we all agree about some of them.

Thomas| 1.14.11 @ 10:25AM

I was amazed at the reaction from Conservatives this last week. It is as if the fact that every liberal pundit and liberal media organ would lie about the causes of this tragedy [simple homicidal mental illness] to attack Conservatives, Republicans and anyone else that they felt threatened their agenda. Really now, is any reasonably intelligent person surprised at this?

There is a reason why polls show that those who believe that global warming even exists, let alone is man-made could probably fit inside a football stadium. There is a reason why the broadcast news shows and the liberal cable news stations ratings are in the toilet. And the print media would be out of business if it weren't for people buying the Sunday addition for the sale ads. The majority of the people in this country know where the truth can be found and where fairy tales originate.

This does not mean that those defamed by these lies should not defend themselves, but the intensity of the outrage this past week can actually work against those people trying to reinforce the idea that such violence is impossible where they and their supporters are concerned. Strong emotional responses only tend to raise questions of the possibility of a future violent response.

The best response to attacks of this nature is a calm, cool, measured response. One that simply points out the fact that no evidence exists to support such claims and sorrow over the fact that these people are simply lying to advance themselves and their agenda, once again. Every time they tell a lie, simply shake your head and point out the truth.

Now the paranoid, the psychotic, and the hysterical will still run in circles ringing their hands and believing the lies. But, the rest of society, the sane members, will simply shake their heads and ask for proof. And that is the way it should be.

At the moment, all of those, who jumped upon their soapboxes a week ago to proclaim Conservative rhetoric was responsible for the mass murder in Tucson, look like fools. We should allow them to bask in that.

bluecollarbytes| 1.14.11 @ 10:31AM

Yeah, what if? I was hoping that no connection was revealed 'tying' Loughner into the tea party phenom, not because that proved anything, but because PopMedia would run with it, never letting go. Instead they are, or should be, humiliated for their buck-nakedness of hostile win-at-all-costs partisanship.

PopMedia now prefers to simply walk away as though it never happened.

George S| 1.14.11 @ 10:38AM

"Fortunately, Americans have again rejected liberal notions and absolved conservatives of breaching political etiquette."

How can you be so sure? Do you have any idea what teachers or professors are telling their classes about Tucson? Today the battle has been won, but the war may ultimately be lost as each generation is more and more ignorant on the Constitution, God, civics, and the evils of dependency on a central government.

Proud Republican| 1.14.11 @ 10:42AM

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. We have been calling for the elimination of the Democrats for years. Now someone has actually done something about it. What's the problem?

George True| 1.14.11 @ 10:50AM

I reference my earlier response to Ken regarding false flag posters. Go away, troll. You are no more a Republican or a conservative than the Pope is a Muslim. Your attempt to falsely portray murderous intent on the part of conservatives is as transparent as it is infantile.

Proud Republican| 1.14.11 @ 10:56AM

Your attempt to dance away from your own party is pathetic. One is either a true Republican or one is not. You clearly are not.

George True| 1.14.11 @ 11:07AM

Go away little boy. Go back to the PuffHo or wherever you came from.

Proud Republican| 1.14.11 @ 11:12AM

Clearly your name is meant ironically. There is nothing true about you, George. When you have learned what it means to be a true Republican, come back again. Until then, don't sully these pages with your infidelity.

George Treu| 1.14.11 @ 11:26AM

This is rich. A leftist troll trying to convince me that I'm not a true conservative if I don't advocate violence against political opponents. Projecting a bit are we? You are a pitiful thing. Best run along now.

A leftist troll| 1.14.11 @ 11:34AM

I am actually a leftist troll and I have to say, George, that "Proud Republican" has got a lot more backbone than you do. At least he isn't trying to pretend that for the last so many years the Republicans haven't been calling for the total elimination of the opposition.

George True| 1.14.11 @ 11:54AM

Flushed out another one! This is too easy.

Newtral Observer| 1.14.11 @ 11:59AM

This is getting confusing. Who's the troll and who's not? Is it "Proud" or is it "George"? At least "leftist" admits he's a troll, so I suppose I can take him at his word. But the other two - it's hard to distingush! Help!

George True| 1.14.11 @ 12:06PM

You are obviously new here or else you would know.

Gimme a break| 1.14.11 @ 12:09PM

That's all you got for Newtral, George? A snide insider's insult? The poor guy is genuinely confused. Help him out, for criminy's sake.

George True| 1.14.11 @ 12:21PM

I am the one who called him out on his pathetic attempt to paint Republicans as calling for violence against Democrats. It is obvious who is the false flagging troll and who isn't.

Proud Republican| 1.14.11 @ 12:26PM

No it's not obvious, George. You know as well as I do that every Republican is secretly happy that now there will be one less Democrat in the house, and the perp was not one of our own. I'm not afraid to say so out loud. You, the hypocrite, have to pretend that you don't share that secret. But you do, and so do all true Republicans. Unless you aren't a true Republican, but just a troll pretending to be one.

George True| 1.14.11 @ 12:37PM

Verily thou dost protest too much. Your trying so hard to convince me that "good" Republicans want all Dems dead is, in and of itself prima facia evidence that you are a leftist attempting a smear job. (And by the way, who said I was a Republican? A conservatives and a Republicans are not necessarily the same thing.) Anyway you should stop embarrassing yourself and give it up. You have been outed. Leftist troll.

Stammon| 1.14.11 @ 12:37PM

You're pathetic, crawl back under your rock.
I think Proud-Gimme and Newtral are all the same lib-troll.
Prove me wrong.

Stammon| 1.14.11 @ 12:32PM

This is all so obvious.
Proud whaterever, Newtral whocares, you obviously are newbees who haven't been here before. When you post all us oldsters can see right through you. Take your wit and go back to Slate, you can pull it off there.

Gimme a break| 1.14.11 @ 12:37PM

Stammon, you don't know what you are talking about. These fellows, me included, have been posting here literally since day 1. If you don't believe me, check the archives.

George True| 1.14.11 @ 12:40PM

Give it up. You are the newbies here. (Assuming you are not all the same person.) Lame.

Stammon| 1.14.11 @ 1:01PM

Oh go on, pull the other one.

Newtral Observer| 1.14.11 @ 1:40PM

Ok, I think I have it figured out:

Proud Republican - a right-winger, maybe a little too blunt for most people's tastes

George True - a right-wing wannabe, but not quite sure how far he is willing to go

A leftist troll - a leftist troll

Gimme a break - a whiner, so he knows whining when he sees it

Stammon - has nothing at all, but knows what he doesn't like

George True| 1.14.11 @ 1:59PM

Proud Republican: A leftist troll, trying to convince us he's a "true" Republican. Trying to get us to agree with him that "Yeah, we gots to get our guns n go keel all them Democrats". In your leftist dreams, pal. No only are you pathetic, you are now getting really, really boring.

Proud Republican| 1.14.11 @ 2:17PM

George True: An utter fool, who makes all true Republicans look bad. He knows nothing except how to defend his own person. Has no knowledge of what politics is all about, but is quick to take offense. He has nothing to say, and even his insults have no content.

Calypso Lowie| 1.14.11 @ 10:49AM

"Booger" only thinks he was writing satire. In fact we have the cult of Malcom X. Malcom's genius lay in saying it was healthy to hate whites. (As blacks truly were oppressed such hatred was healthy) Eventually Malcom had to be transcended. The fact that his name is still to be conjured with bodes ill.

VBMax| 1.14.11 @ 11:11AM

To the progressive trolls who post on this site:
I've only been a recent poster, myself, on this site although I've been a TAS reader for many years.
(since early in the Clinton administration)
I know you only come here to cause trouble and I do admit you manage to raise a few hackles now and then.
But, I have to tell you your perverted communications are having zero affect on what many of us term a war for the future of our country. We left you to implement your ridiculous political philosophy for decades and the problem is you went too far. That was our transgression, we failed to act when we should have. We're fully engaged now and we will win in the end. (no matter how long or how much effort it will take)
You see, we love our country and believe in the goodness of America, and that motivation is far more than anything you have to sustain your efforts. So, I would recommend that you cease to waste both your time and ours by posting your stupid comments.
Now, I'm not one to close a communication without offering a viable alternative. To those of you that still possess a modicum of sanity, I invite you to discontinue your transgressions against your fellow man and join those of us who strive to re-establish a nation based on freedom with "liberty and justice for all". I know that it may be difficult to accept this invitation after all the vitriol (there's that word again) that you've heaped on many of us but it is possible. All you have to do is change your mind. And knowing my fellow freedom lovers, as they are, I'm sure that you'll be forgiven and taken into the fold. But it does take sincere action on your part to make it happen Good luck!

See through the BS| 1.14.11 @ 11:13AM

Hurray for VBMax! Another useful idiot!

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.14.11 @ 11:33AM

VBMax,
Well spoken, Sir, (ma'am?).
By the way; welcome to the conversations.

...and yes, we see through BS's bs.

VBMax| 1.14.11 @ 11:42AM

Thanks Ken,
Didn't take long to flush one of them out, did it?
(BTW I'm a guy)

See through the BS| 1.14.11 @ 11:35AM

Hurray for Ken! Yet another useful idiot!

George True| 1.14.11 @ 11:52AM

"Yet another useful idiot"

Projecting are we, troll?

Jullou| 1.14.11 @ 11:57AM

When statists/Democrats/liberals/progressives can't compete with conservatives, they try to silence them or demonize them.

These Alinsky rules (Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky) are always being used by leftists against conservatives:

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134

Wayne | 1.14.11 @ 12:47PM

It is amazing how often conservative pundits get fooled by these tactics. Just read to those who praised Obama's speech for projecting the right "tone". See to them speech "did matter" They failed to see that the Democratics choose to smear so that Obama could appear moderate. This is a common Alinsky tactic and it is why so many Republicans praised the Alinsky expert: William Daley.

Bob Grant| 1.14.11 @ 1:02PM

I wonder if they worried about the wrong tone being projected last year when they spent about half of it using the offensive republicans-drove-the-economy-in-the-ditch metaphor; directing republicans to shut up and hand over the keys.

Would that be the right tone?

Strange days indeed.

I just hope there's something left of the country when sanity prevails.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 12:16PM

This site always pushes half the story under the rug in order to mount an offensive defense against the imaginary "other side."

Why not call out individuals and leave the blanket statements with the other media hypocrites?

"liberals" and "conservatives" doesn't even mean anything anymore, with the breadth of positions adopted by every individual.

Nes Lesman| 1.14.11 @ 1:12PM

You have to look at the frame of reference. Here, anyone who doesn't agree with the neoconservative is a liberal and/ or an idiot. There is no nuance.

Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 1:28PM

Nick,
Perhaps Statist and Constitutionalist might be better or at least more clear.

Nes,
Neocons have certain problems as well. Nation building for example.

Ask what it is Conservatives wish to conserve and the distinctions become more evident.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 1:57PM

Why would anyone call conservatives "constitutionalists?"

Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 3:32PM

Kind of a pregnant question. What term would you suggest? Are Conservatives not constitutionalist? What are they then?

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 3:43PM

Seems that all politicians should be abiding by the constitution, even if we don't all agree with how the document is read in every circumstance.

Bizarrely, isn't it conservatives that are against parts of the constitution such as the 14th amendment?

Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 4:16PM

All elected officials are under oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution..." Interesting how so many of them choose to ignore inconvienient parts or find penumbras justifying statist policies.

BTW, the 14th was adopted by requiring the formerly seceeded states to ratify it as a condition of re-admittance to the Union. Lincoln for his part maintained that the states were never out. If they were then secession is allowed- if one can make it stick. Would Obama roll the tanks to force say Texas or Arizona in these days?

Conservatives might take exception to parts of the 14th, 16th,17th, recognizing that new amendments need to be adopted to change them. What about the 2nd, or 10th from your perspective? The objection is to activists re-interpreting the clear language to find new "rights" or meanings hidden in the text. The current debate about "birthright citizenship" actually adresses intent at the time.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 4:48PM

Intent at the time also endorsed slavery, counted black people as 3/5th citizens, and didn't count native americans at all. Are those tenets that conservatives wish to maintain, or can we agree that debating the meaning and interpretation of the document as it applies to today doesn't set one group up to wrap itself in it anymore than the next?

Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 5:09PM

That wasn't intent, it was clear language all changed by amendment. Your worn out arguments are becoming tiresome.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 5:22PM

The thing is that the constitution was drafted by many people who all didn't agree with each other, so the idea that we can derive "original intent" is moot.

Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 5:32PM

Not true. read the records of the state ratifying conventions. That, alongside the Federalist, gives a clear view as to what the ratifiers understood the language to mean. Most of them understood the document was not perfect, just "more perfect" than what preceeded it. Oh yeah, Madison in the Federalist opposed a bill of rights as amendments althoug he later when in Congress took the lead in their adoption. He though though that they should be placed in the body of the document as appropriate rather than appended as an afteword.

Now then, if you would be so kind (note my civil tone,heh heh) as to go back and answer some of my direct questions, such as what term you would use for Conservatives, we might get this conversation back on track.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 5:44PM

They understood that the documents were written in such a way that we would still be debating what they meant in 2011.

I don't know what I'd call "conservatives" nowadays. It's difficult, because there are so few "conservatives" representing the conservative party on the national level. However, I don't agree with the premise that "Conservatives" are more attached to constitution than "Liberals" are, so I'd start by NOT calling them "constitutionalists."

Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 6:37PM

Jefferson thought every generation would have to re-affirm it. Madison disagreed. Oh well.

Our conversation has come full circle now so have a good weekend.

Kingofthenet| 1.14.11 @ 12:24PM

Jared Lee Loughner Friday, LEGAL gun owner, Sat. Mass Murder, Virginia Tech. Shooter, one day LEGAL gun owner next Mass Murderer, Lee Harvey Oswald one day LEGAL gun owner, next Presidential Assassin, Etc, Etc...

Bob Grant| 1.14.11 @ 12:39PM

Aaaaaannnnddd your point is?

Kingofthenet| 1.14.11 @ 12:49PM

These are ONLY some of the bigger 'mass' killings, we hardly hear the 'second' level killings, LEGAL gun owner loses job, kills Boss or his family or 'third' level gun violence, kid finds Dad's gun, blows face off. We have to tighten screening for prospective owners.

Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 1:05PM

Dear King...,
Quis custodiet custodes?

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 1:15PM

Kook of the Net,

How would tightening the "screening for prospective owners" prevent your last example of "kid finds Dad's gun, blows face off?"

Admit it, you want to confiscate all guns, as all bleeding heart liberals do.

You guys have lost this debate, badly. Democrats won't even mention gun control in an election year anymore. Move on.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 2:04PM

Every member of my family is a gun toting Democrat.
It's not a partisan issue.

Do you believe that Americans should be able to own rocket launchers? Where do you draw the line? Seems like people should be able to debate the issue, without some moron screaming "therrr takin err gunzz!"

For example, it seems a fairly moderate position that insane individuals have to go through proper screening processes. Do you support the easy access of guns for crazy people and criminals?

Even the legislation being introduced that narrowly targets extended clips, like the ones used by loughner, don't take extended clips away from the people who already own them.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 3:15PM

Nicholas,

I wrote bleeding heart liberals. "Doncha' hav yu sum fanci book learnin'? Whacha', ignant, or sumpin'?"

So, you are for passing useless laws that would have had NO impact on atrocities like the one last Saturday, right? That's very moderate of you.

If you knew anything about the 2nd Article of Amendment, you would know it covered weapons used by the infantry soldier, or weapons for self-defense.

The Constitution made a provision for Congress to license private individuals to use weapons of war, like armed ships. These were called Letters of Marque. Ever heard of them? I'll bet you haven't.

I'd hate to burst you bubble, Nicholas, but "crazy people and criminals" can't legally buy guns. Criminals and crazy people don't obey laws, brainiac.

Do you believe this murderous scumbag, Loughner, would've obeyed a law prohibiting the ownership and use of "high capacity" magazines at the same time he was planning mass murder? Does that make sense to you?

He could've made pipe-bombs from materials purchased at his local hardware store, and killed more people. Are you for easy access to plumbing supplies by the insane, Nicholas?

You can't stop these atrocities from happening, in a free society. All you can do is quickly try, convict, and execute the perpetrators.

Nice name, by the way.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 4:02PM

It's called a gun show: Criminals and crazy people can easily buy guns in this country because we don't have the proper regulations. Those regulations would be brought to us by legislators making reasonable decisions about buying and selling guns, if we didn't have such an unreasonable gun lobby in the country.

A gun with an extended clip allowing 30 shots can easily kill more people than a pipe bomb, especially because all he had to do to get the extended clip was to buy it at a store. We used to make pipebombs for the 4th of july when I was in highschool: they'll confuse and scare way more people than they'll harm.

People talking about gun regulations don't expect all our problems to be solved with the small adjustments they make to the laws. However, the hope is to reduce the impact of the nationwide massacre that is happening in this country every year.

It's insane that there can't even be a discussion without people screaming about "bleeding heart liberals."

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 4:21PM

Nicholas,

You don't know what you're talking about. Background checks are required at gun shows. Also, even if Loughner had been on a mental list, and denied the purchase of the weapon, he could've bought one on the blackmarket.

Someone who is determined to kill is going to do it. Again, they don't care about laws.

We have too many gun regulations in this country. What we don't have, is enough enforcement.

A 30 round magazine is no more deadly than a pipe-bomb vest, or driving a vehicle into a crowd. If someone in that crowd had been armed, the death toll could've been less.

It's insane to falsely claim people are "screaming" when they are not.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 4:38PM

At least 2 people in that crowd were armed... one of them almost shot the other one.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that making access more difficult to guns would make them just as easily obtained. That doesn't make sense.

Guns are easily bought in mass quantities at gun shows and sold in black markets. That was also one of my points exactly. I, personally, believe that our legislators should discuss the gun show loophole, and that doesn't mean I'm pro-taking away people's guns.
It's a discussion we should be able to have, but we can't because the second it's mentioned, people start freaking out about liberals trying to steal their guns.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 5:16PM

Nicholas,

"At least 2 people in that crowd were armed... one of them almost shot the other one."

Sorry, looked it up. Couldn't find any reference to this alleged incident from any legitimate news source. Only from kook lefty propaganda outlets. Care to give your source?

There is no "gun show loophole." It is already against the law to buy guns and then sell them on the black market, or, to make straw purchases of firearms. The problem is enforcement.

I didn't claim it would make "them just as easily obtained." I stated the fact that it would do nothing to stop someone determined to kill someone else. Enough with the strawman arguments, okay?

Again, nobody is freaking out. Your side has lost the debate. The democrat party won't even talk about guns. Kerry made a point to be filmed getting a hunting license in 2004.

Your pleas for reasonable gun restrictions will fall on deaf ears. The democrats don't want to talk about it.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 5:28PM

I watched the man in an interview. I'm not pulling that out of thin air. It wasn't reported by a journalist, the man recounting the events himself. It was on either CNN or MSNBC, which shouldn't take away from anything, seeing as the man was reporting the story himself.

The democrats are already talking about it.

Someone determined to kill will kill, that doesn't mean we should make it any easier for them.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 5:43PM

Nicholas,

So, you have no source.

A couple of democrats are talking about it. Let's see how far they get. Not far, is my bet. Care to wager?

It's not about making it easier for them. It's about burdening law abiding citizens. What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?

We are all responsible for protecting our own lives.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 5:47PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 5:52PM

"Shall not be infringed" does not have any bearing: people are not having their guns taken away. What was the point you were trying to make there?

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 6:31PM

Nicholas,

Must I explain plain English to you? After the video clip debacle, I guess I must.

[...] the right of the people [...]

All the people have this right. Not the federal government, and not the states. The people do.

[...] to keep and bear arms [...]

The people can keep arms, and bear them. That means we can own guns, knives, swords, clubs, bayonets, etc. It also means that we can carry them around, if we so choose.

[...] shall not be infringed.

Infringe:–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

Therefore, we, the people, can own and carry guns; and this right cannot be violated by anyone.

You don't like it, Nicholas? Amend the Constitution.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 6:38PM

And must I explain to you that the second amendment was written before assault rifles ?

The forefathers didn't say anyone could own any weapon they desired.

How effective do you think a machine gun would have been at promoting public safety in that crowd of people?

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 6:47PM

Nicholas,

It doesn't matter. As I stated, the only remedy is to amend the Constitution.

I have already explained the difference between arms and Letters of Marque, remember? You seem to be very ill-informed on this subject.

To answer your second question: In the right hands, very effective.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 6:19PM

Nicholas,

Did you even watch that video clip?

Joe Zamudio was in Walgreens when the shooting occured. It was over when he arrived, and Loughner had already been disarmed.

Mr. Zamudio didn't say he almost shot the man who had Loughner's gun. He said he would've shot Loughner, if he had been there when he started shooting.

So, your entire claim was utterly false, Nicholas.

There were not two armed people there. And, one did not almost shoot the other one. Get your facts straight next time, okay?

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 6:30PM

I didn't notice that the first guy was holding the gunners firearm rather than his own when i listened to the clip. Regardless, there was an armed individual in the area, and his gun was useless in the circumstance.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 6:37PM

Come on!, Nicholas, what a cop out.

Why can't you just admit you were wrong?
That's what adults do, ya' know?

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 6:40PM

I said I screwed up. What's your problem?
That was a side comment in a larger discussion we are having. Talk about straw men arguments...

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 6:54PM

Nicholas,

The cop out was still clinging to your bogus belief that an armed citizen couldn't have lessened the death toll, when shown, contrary to what you wrote, that there were no armed people present.

Remember your question, from earlier:

"What is the purpose of a [constitutional republic] filled with people who refuse to ever have their minds changed by reason?"

Physician, heal thyself.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 7:00PM

So the only way to protect us from ourselves is to put a rocket launcher into the hands of every man, woman and child. Good reasoning.

Nic| 1.14.11 @ 7:12PM

That is a straw man argument, Nicholas. I never claimed any such thing. But, you are arguing like I did. See the difference?

If that is what you think my argument has been, then English must be your third language.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 7:20PM

From the start I've been talking about putting stricter measures on 1) who is able to buy guns and 2) what kind of guns can be bought.
There was an accidental segway into open carry laws, which I'm not really that interested in.

Let me rephrase: Let's all buy more of that thing that is killing us to protect us from that thing that is killing us, and let's make it really easy to buy a lot of really big versions of that thing that is killing us, because that thing that is killing us is still killing us.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 7:55PM

Oh, Nicholas, you should've quit, while you were behind.

Your premise is completely false. The thing, i.e. guns, are not killing us. The people using them are. Inanimate objects cannot kill, they can only be used to kill. Are knives also killing us?

Yes, all you have been doing is "talking" about those two restrictions. You have utterly failed to show what good it would do, or how it would've stopped the atrocity in Tuscon.

There was no accidental segue, the 2nd Article of Amendment is thee open carry law. The Roberts Court will see to that.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 1:19AM

Writing with a condescending tone doesn't make your argument any less insane. Guns don't kill people, people kill people... Could you be more trite? I'm pretty sure the guns help.

I started the discussion stating that I'm not anti-gun, I'm just pro-regulation. You've said absolutely nothing to argue against my premise that people don't need to be carrying around extended clips or machine guns and that it is utterly too easy for stupid/crazy people to buy very large weapons in this country.

I didn't have a chance to fall behind, because you chose to never make any counterpoints to the issues I was addressing. You just waved around the constitution, as if our forefathers had any clue about the horrible weapons we'd learn to make.

Nick| 1.15.11 @ 12:24PM

Nicholas,

You, of all people, are lecturing about being condescending?

Did you not write, in your first response to me, "Seems like people should be able to debate the issue, without some moron screaming 'therrr takin err gunzz!'" Again, physician, heal thyself.

You have done nothing but assert false premises, which I have picked apart with military precision. And, yes, how terrible of me to wave "around the constitution." What was I thinking?

John Navratil| 1.15.11 @ 2:48PM

Nicholas,

You said: "At least 2 people in that crowd were armed... one of them almost shot the other one." Then you posted this YouTube video. Did you watch it?

Everyone! Watch this video and see if Nicholas is correct. The closest this fellow in the interview comes to shooting the wrong man is disarming someone on the ground who was not the shooter after the shooter had been subdued. He didn't draw his weapon but said he would have if he needed to.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 4:11PM

Where I come from, this is what we call "beating a dead horse."

Bob Grant| 1.14.11 @ 3:21PM

Question. Do you really believe the framers would bother to include an amendment to the constitution that provides citizens the right to own guns to shoot animals for food?

In the late 18th century, no gun meant no protein.

Now, it seems more plausible that the second amendment intended to provide the citizen the right to protect themselves against people/entities who would infringe on their rights, including the government.

Let's start from the premise:
How do YOU interpret the Second Amendment?

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 4:14PM

I never implied that I interpreted it any different than you. I said that I support gun ownership. Guns are for protection: I get it. They're a rather ineffective way of protecting ourselves in most instances, but I support them nonetheless.

I don't, however, support the sale of weapons designed specifically for killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time as possible. Who needs a gun like that? Who needs a crazy/drunk/angry neighbor who has a gun like that?

Do you seriously believe your guns will ever be necessary to fight and/or overthrow the government?
So much for elections.

Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 4:26PM

Still, it does seem necessary to retain the option. "When a government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..." Maybe it has helped keep our national government in line so far.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 4:29PM

The option died with nuclear weapons and drone missiles. We're not going to fight the government from a hole we dug in our backyards and filled with automatic weapons.

Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 5:04PM

Do you really believe President Al Naqis would roll the tanks to force a Texas or Arizona to comply with healthcare?

On the other hand if, as you maintain, our founding documents are irrelevant, then what limits the governance of the nation? Can any passing majority then impose its will on the rest?

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 5:34PM

Things aren't enforced with tanks anymore; they're enforced with money.

President Al Naqis? Is that one of those stupid muslim jibes?
Funny coming from a supporter of a party whose strongest candidate is a mormon.

Todd S| 1.14.11 @ 9:54PM

A Mormon hater are we Nicholas? I guess your point that you are attempting to make is that Mormons are just as extreme as the Muslims or something like that. Have there been any Mormon suicide bombings lately I am not aware of Nicholas? You are an idiot and Nick schooled you big time. In this debate, you were holding the knife and Nick had the gun and you got blown away.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 1:22AM

Mormon hater? For pointing out irony? No, I don't think so. Move along.

Todd S| 1.15.11 @ 10:36AM

Explain the "irony" Nicholas? Seems like outright prejudice. There is one group where some Christians and leftists can agree on being bigoted against and that is Mormons. Anyone who has been around Utah knows they are completely normal peaceful well functioning people but old stereotypes and bigotries die hard.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 11:25AM

No, I just think it's ironic that rightwingers are so keen on attacking the president with the made up accusation that he isn't a Christian, while their best bet for winning the white house is by putting in an actual non-Christian.

I grew up in Missouri--the Mormon's Garden of Eden--so don't tell me what I do or don't think about mormons. I know they're a diverse group of people, just like any other group of people.
That doesn't take away from the irony.

Todd S| 1.15.11 @ 3:59PM

So does Rev Wright qualify as a Christian in your book but Mormons don't? The Jesus we believe in died for everyone sins so I believe that qualifies us whatever you think you clown. What Rev Wright preaches is black theology as written by James Cone and is nothing but racist Marxism. But I guess Obama wasn't around for those sermons, just the ones about love and Jesus right Nicholas? Those sermons apparently never made it to Rev Wright's greatest hits DVD with Amerikkka and chickens coming home to roost. Moron

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 4:09PM

If, in your flavor of Christianity, you consider mormonism equal to christianity, by all mean don't let me question your faith.
But don't be surprised when most mainstream Christians will certainly not have your back.

And, the assertion that someone is not Christian because you don't agree with his politics or his blackness is just plain stupid. Moron

Todd S| 1.15.11 @ 6:06PM

Booger stated it best, somewhat satirical but very close to the truth. Rev Wright preaches hate straight up, that is not Christianity. He preaches Black Liberation Theology and that is a completely different thing, closer to Islam like his good buddy Farrakhan. He also supported Hamas openly in his "Church". Damn right I don't consider Obama a Christian when that is the only Church he has ever attended regularly in his life. His blackness has nothing to do with it so nice try with your racist angle. Any good Marxist doesn't believe in God, only that the ends justify the means.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 6:14PM

You're an expert rationalizer.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 6:19PM

One more thing, since you're the expert:

If Jesus is God, and God impregnated Mary, doesn't that make Jesus a mother fucker?

Todd S| 1.15.11 @ 6:42PM

Showing your true colors as the lowlife scum you are. Only the lowest of the low would say something like that

Nicholas| 1.16.11 @ 1:12AM

... or someone who thinks your belief in magical imaginary friends is fair game for teasing.

I stayed civil for long enough... and then I got called a marxist, a communist, a socialist, and an evil, brainwashed puppet... so, I think I'll just go with it. I mean, come on... How fun can it be for you guys to sit around jerking each other off while talking shit on liberals, moderates, moderate republicans, and anyone else who isn't an old, white, Christian, Teabagger?

John Navratil| 1.16.11 @ 10:08AM

Nicholas,

You put your word on it... "teasing".

You have posited a logical inconsistency. If you are a believer, the answer is NO. If you are not a believer, the answer is NO.

So why did you post this? Perhaps is was...

(1) you were too careless and hadn't though enough about what you were writing to realize this was not inconsistent.

(2) you were too uneducated to realize it, or

(3) you knew the answer and just wanted a rise. In which case you might wish to abandon the discussion forum in favour of a more suitable venue.

Of course, I could be completely mistaken or too stupid to recognize the subtle wisdom in your posting. In which case, I beg you to please enlighten me if you neurons have recovered from your hard day, yesterday.

Nicholas| 1.16.11 @ 10:43AM

Mostly I realized that anyone that comes to this site to get his/her news has to be a fucking moron, so there's really no point in trying to use reason. I've found the trolly grail, because there is no decent human here. I'm thinking about going on to Reddit and seeing what other trolls I can pull out of the wood works to come play with you guys.

How do you reason with people who believe in talking snakes; that scientists are all co-conspiracists; that they have the right to push Christian "absolutes" on to non-Christians in a secular society; that the president is a secret muslim/socialist operative trying to destroy the country from the inside out; ad nauseum crazy idiot bull shit?
You don't. You just push buttons and see what fires.

John Navratil| 1.16.11 @ 1:10PM

Please. You make a point, I refute it and you are too tired to address it or find it too easy to call me a moron. Do I talk to snakes? No! Only you, but I digress. I push buttons to see what fires? Look in the mirror.

We are attempting to get to a conclusion here. Argument begins with premises - articles of faith - and one deduces what are essentially theorems from them.

You show up spouting absolutes and when challenged, retreat or change the topic. You think that positing some sort of transcendantal Oedipal thought is trenchant. Perhaps you should go back to drinking the bong water.

You play with words like a cat plays with a string. Very amusing to the cat but, ultimately, pointless. Go call up you troll buddies and send them over. You are not up to it.

Nicholas| 1.16.11 @ 1:44PM

In psychology, I think this is called "projecting." Rightwingers notoriously jump to accusing other of those things that they are most guilty. It's probably one of the important keys to their spin.

When I scroll through the comments, and look at places where I have explicitly said "this is my point," the responses consistently avoid that point in order to pick apart something trivial.

Stephanie| 1.14.11 @ 2:13PM

And they were all leftists. What say you now?

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 2:59PM

How do you attribute party politics to crazy people like that? That was a really dumb thing for you to say.

Loughner was clearly neither liberal nor conservative, just pure crazy.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 6:16PM

One more thing, since you're the expert:

If Jesus is God, and God impregnated Mary, doesn't that make Jesus a mother fucker?

Shit| 1.15.11 @ 6:18PM

Goddammit, I posted this to the wrong comment.

Decent Human Being| 1.15.11 @ 7:04PM

Something that Nicholas is not

Nicholas| 1.16.11 @ 12:45AM

Ha. Looks like I definitely must have said something right.

Bob Grant| 1.15.11 @ 10:45PM

I pity you!

Wayne | 1.14.11 @ 12:43PM

I disagree. Words do matter. When I heard Chris Matthews suggest than somebody "do in" Sarah Palin, I felt that he could push some left wing nut into doing just that.

Bob Grant| 1.14.11 @ 12:51PM

You guys need to listen to Bill Maher more. A couple of nights ago on the Tonight Show he mentioned the left wing loons are harmless and not to be taken seriously when they spew their violent hate.

He believes if people spent more time at the Playboy Mansion spreading brand new sexually transmitted diseases the CDC doesn't even know exists, people would chill and lay (no pun on words) down their weapons.

Wayne | 1.14.11 @ 6:10PM

I guess Maher ignores that the shooter is a pot head and user of other drugs, but I imagine most lefties are.

Smokey the Bear| 1.15.11 @ 5:19PM

Which group do you think are more prone to kill people: Couch potato pot heads or Religious Fanatics?

Let me go open a history book... Any history book.

John Navratil| 1.16.11 @ 10:18AM

Here are the top five:

Mao
Stalin
Hitler
Tojo
Pol Pot

Are these religious fanatics? You might wish to crack a history book, yourself.

W| 1.16.11 @ 12:41PM

they were atheists. don't know about Tojo, propably a shinto budhist.

Smokey the Bear| 1.16.11 @ 1:52PM

What question were you answering? You're saying that Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, and Pol Pot were all stoners? Nowhere was atheism mentioned, dumb ass.

John Navratil| 1.16.11 @ 5:06PM

Ok! Stoners, like Loughner, are much safer than religious fanatics, is that your point?

A stoner is easy to define. A religious fanatic is much harder to tell from a zealot. So, if your measure is that religious fanatics are more dangerous than stoners, I accept your point.

Now I ask (as was implied by my response), who do YOU think are MOST likely to kill people?

Thanks for the epithet, but I would still like to see your question framed in ANY history book.

Smokey the Bear| 1.16.11 @ 7:06PM

Okay, if you want to divert the point, here we go:

Those examples you cited were examples of mandatory atheism. Why make atheism mandatory? Because these were all examples of extremely nationalistic societies where, in order to centralize all power to a single dictator or entity, religion was outlawed.
These extreme examples are societies where freedom is stifled, not unlike those run by religious extremists: Iran, Saudi Arabia and to a large extent, parts of Europe when it was controlled by the Catholic church--before secularism.

We, however, live in a Free and Secular society. People can choose whether or not they want to participate in whatever religion they want. Unfortunately, Fundamentalist Christians don't seem to understand this, and would have us all live by Biblical law, which is not so dissimilar to Sharia law. They force an anti-women, anti-gay, anti-sex agenda down our throats everyday in order to push the nation as close as they can to being more like these much despised theocracies that are so similar to the atheistic dictatorships you mentioned.

However, these atheistic nations weren't starting wars in the name of atheism. Instead, they were pushing a political agenda and amassing territory and power.
How many wars do you think have been fought in the name of one religion or another? Now, how many wars have been fought in order to spread atheism? Hitler's aim certainly wasn't the spread of atheism. Neither was Stalin's. They might have done so in order to make themselves God-like figures, but it definitely wasn't because they were so enamored by atheism.

John Navratil| 1.16.11 @ 7:21PM

The five costliest wars in lives lost to the U.S. have been those since the Civil War through Viet Nam. The costliest wars to the World were WWI and WWII. None were fought for religious reasons.

Try again!

Smokey the Bear| 1.16.11 @ 8:11PM

That wasn't what I asked in the slightest.
Do you think I would be fooled by that?
Where's your counterpoint?

John Navratil| 1.17.11 @ 9:31AM

You are quite correct, I really didn't make one. Here it is...

You state Stoners are less dangerous than religious zealots. I suggest that it is zealotry of all kinds which is dangerous with, by citing historical references, is most dangerous without its religious component.

Comparing the dangers stoners to religious zealots is like comparing the relative dangers of bait fish to barracudas.... while swimming amongst the sharks.

Purely anecdotally, and as a caution to painting with too broad a brush, Charles Manson was also a stoner. His messianic ways may also qualify him for religious zealotry, but not in any recognized religion.

John Navratil| 1.17.11 @ 9:31AM

You are quite correct, I really didn't make one. Here it is...

You state Stoners are less dangerous than religious zealots. I suggest that it is zealotry of all kinds which is dangerous with, by citing historical references, is most dangerous without its religious component.

Comparing the dangers stoners to religious zealots is like comparing the relative dangers of bait fish to barracudas.... while swimming amongst the sharks.

Purely anecdotally, and as a caution to painting with too broad a brush, Charles Manson was also a stoner. His messianic ways may also qualify him for religious zealotry, but not in any recognized religion.

Smokey the Bear| 1.17.11 @ 10:34AM

Ugh, I went to so much trouble to divert my point for your change of subject, and then you skip back to the original point. I'm getting whiplash.

Steve A| 1.14.11 @ 12:45PM

Hey King, Wow, what a well thought out, rational argument for banning firearms you lay out. If only the likes of Jared, Lee Harvey & Cho knew that obtaining a firearm was illegal, this would prevent them from executing people. Oh, wait, but murder is also illegal & they violated that one. Let me rethink your brilliant strategy.....

Kingofthenet| 1.14.11 @ 1:00PM

Do YOU know where to get a gun illegally?, I sure don't. Doesn;t mean i couldn't possible find one but it's alot harder than walking into a store and walking out 20 minutes later.

Bob Grant| 1.14.11 @ 1:10PM

I suggest you read Diary of Anne Frank if you have issues with our second amendment. Maybe the story would have had a happier ending had the Frank family "packed a little heat".

Just saying.

Stammon| 1.14.11 @ 1:17PM

Bullpucky.
I tried to buy my mother (74) a pistol for Christmas (she lives alone). Even with her standing beside me, I was unable to buy my mother a pistol to take back to Virginia. Federal Law does not allow me to buy my mother a pistol in Indiana for use in Virginia. And I refused to lie to the gun store owner, even though that was what is expected.
If you have no record, and have the money, you should be able to buy any gun anywhere in the US, for use anywhere else. Don't like that, go live in Canada. They think we are nuts anyway.

Kingofthenet| 1.14.11 @ 1:26PM

Because buying a Senior Citizen a gun, shows great judgment...

John Navratil| 1.15.11 @ 1:04PM

Any problem giving a pistol as a Christmas gift?

Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 1.14.11 @ 12:47PM

AMEN.

rdman| 1.14.11 @ 1:07PM

About a year ago, Gallup issued the following political demographic survey:

Conservatives 40%
Independents 35%
Liberals (Progressives) 21%

Since then however, Independents have dumped the Liberals “big time” and joined the Conservative Ascendancy in droves as confirmed by the November 2010 election and the latest verifiable demographic surveys.

The dramatic demographic paradigm shift suggests re-identification of the media paradigm:

The “New” Main Stream Media (MSM)… Human Events, American Spectator, Townhall, WND, Heritage Foundation, Breitbart’s Big Government, Forbes, Buckley’s National Review, Conservative Talk Radio and TV… places of divergent views, principled spirited debate; perception, discernment, critical thought; American exceptionalism; and obliterating liberal troll infiltrators.

The Old Stagnant “Late” State Run Media ‘aka’ Lame Stream Media… ppphhhhfffftt* the age of Aquarius is soon to be and finally… DUST IN THE WIND!!

Kingofthenet| 1.14.11 @ 1:21PM

I am ALL for this 'Rise' The ONLY way people will get what this 'non' compassionate Conservatism REALLY means, it to CHOKE on some Air pollution, Step over formally Middle Class bums on the street, send their kids off to be shot in a few more needless wars. After that, selling liberal polices will be EASY.The population will be BEGGING for socialism.

Stephanie| 1.14.11 @ 2:20PM

Yeah, I guess we should want the liberal compassion of being chained to the federal government, paying outrageous electric and fuel bills. As far as sending our kids off to be shot at in needless and endless wars, you best take that one up with your boy Barry. He seems to like having our kids over in Aff-gan-eeeeee-stan. Why don't you go pester someone else?

rdman| 1.14.11 @ 5:44PM

Hey King (?)... you want a taste of Socialism? Take a trip to Nicaragua or any other Socialist regrime in this hemisphere. I've been there and you are typing through your indoctrinated false utopian wet dream.

That dust in the wind may be a little smelly with musk and patchouli oil for awhile, but reason, logic and rational thought has a way of cleaning up liberal pollution.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 4:24PM

A 2010 gallup poll also found:

29% identify as Republican
31% identify as Democrat
38% identify as Independent

We live in a conservative nation, but the Republican party hasn't properly represented a good form of conservatism for decades.

rdman| 1.14.11 @ 6:08PM

Very true and precisely the reason for the ascendancy of the Tea Party and the elections of young turk Conservatives. The old bull establishment RINOs are on notice... failure to comply with the will 80% +/- of the population... they will be retired!!

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 6:21PM

Most of those independents are moderates, so I don't know if it's such a good idea for the Republicans to swing even further right with the Teabaggers. If you look at national polls, people like Palin aren't doing so hot.
Independents that might have gone Republican are probably more likely to vote for a conservative Democrat than a Teabagger.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 7:59PM

That's not very moderate language, Nicholas.

You're going to lose your membership in the Mushy Middle-of-the-Road Club.

Bob Grant| 1.14.11 @ 9:16PM

Heh, Heh,

He almost had me fooled with his earlier posts. I thought he was that rare breed: a civil, reasonable, lefty.

Heh, heh,

rdman| 1.14.11 @ 11:18PM

No such animal as a civil, reasonable Lefty...

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 1:30AM

No, moderate also think teabaggers do an awful good job at making themselves look ridiculous at basically every turn.

Boehner isn't going to do you guys any favors over the next couple years either if he doesn't get some counseling for all that crying he does every time he thinks about himself.

Todd S| 1.15.11 @ 10:40AM

Quit with the moderate charade Nicholas, you are a leftist Obama supporter. You got your asses kicked in November and 2012 will be much of the same with the unholy trio of Obama, Pelosi and Reid still running the show for you guys. You will have plenty to cry about after 2012 you teabagging jerk.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 11:19AM

If you remember, in the last election there was not a very good turnout, especially when it came to young people. Talk big, but I suspect you're speaking prematurely.
Also, that "ass-kicking" left the democrats in control of the Senate, and Pelosi is no longer speaker, so I don't know how good your grasp of the situation currently is. Go listen to some talking points before you start posting crap like this.

I'm actually glad to see so many Teabaggers (so many... haha, what was it, 12?) make it in. They're going to be really good for creating a party schism and breaking apart the disciplined party unity that Republicans have been so good at maintaining previously. I'll be interested to see what sort of strange alliances may arise from the new paradigm.

Nick| 1.15.11 @ 12:15PM

Sorry, Nicholas, wrong, yet again.
Do you ever get anything right?

There were over 30 TEA Party candidates elected to Congress, last November. And, there are over 50 members of the TEA Party caucus.

Those numbers will only increase.

rdman| 1.15.11 @ 1:27PM

The term "teabagger" is a sexual act between two or more homosexual males.

The term "Tea Party" is a direct reference to government taxation without representation.

Tell me something... how do you poisoned Leftists reconcile your vitriolic hate, your filthy perverted thinking, your unsubstantiated, baseless assertions and accusations? Are you just simply ignorant and stupid (or) are you indoctrinated useful idiots and tools of your evil puppet masters (or) are you just mentally disordered drones incapable of rational or critical thought.

rdman| 1.15.11 @ 1:31PM

Sorry Nick... my post was directed at the Lefty Nicholas.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 1:38PM

I really hope so. Expect a coalition of progressives and Teabaggers to be making massive cuts in the Defense budget.

Also, expect a newly revived moderate Republican caucus to be forming future coalitions with moderate Democrats, like was already seen in the last Lame Duck session.

The thing that the Republicans used to really be good at was party unity. The Tea Partiers ran on a platform of disrupting the establishment, which effectively means a neutered Republican party.

The next couple of years are going to be really interesting. I don't doubt that we'll all be left even more disenchanted with politics than we began.

Also, I use the term "teabagger" because I think it's funny. Those silly old white people should have been more careful in naming themselves. Go cry to someone who cares.
"Evil puppet master"--you really have no grasp on reality, do you? People disagreeing with you doesn't mean that they're "evil" or brainwashed. It means we disagree. Get over yourself.

rdman| 1.15.11 @ 1:56PM

You consider the term "teabagger", a sexual act between two or more homosexual males as "funny"??? People of principle and integrity manage to have civil discourse in most cases, but You... you are one sick little boy. Get yourself some professional help...

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 2:11PM

This is a line of attack that I have little interest in discussing. You can't handle my language? Grow a pair.

And, FYI, teabagging isn't "a sexual act between two or more homosexual males." It's a sexual act between any person with balls and any other person with a mouth.
Why do you divert the conversation to an attack against homosexuals? This isn't the 90's. Scapegoating gay men and women is the quickest way you can delegitimize yourself in any political conversation.

Nick| 1.15.11 @ 2:42PM

What a shock!

A member of the party of perversion, Nicholas, is an expert on perverted sex acts.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 3:58PM

HAHA, how old are you people? I literally laughed out loud.

"Party of Perversion" !!! Oh man, that's funny. I think that's what I'm going to tell people when they ask me about my politics from now on. Of course, then I'd have to start only voting for Republicans, since chances are so much better that they're doing something naughty!

Seriously though, how old are you folks?

rdman| 1.15.11 @ 3:29PM

LOL... you really are a funny little subversive Marxist boy!

Not to hard to figure out your reality... worshipping at the feet of the likes of :

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Russia; Hitler, Germany; Mao Tse-tung, China; Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam; Pol Pot, Cambodia; Castro, Cuba; Allende, Chile; Chavez, Venezuela; Ortega, Nicaragua; Morales, Bolivia; and now Obami, USA.

Tell me, funny little subversive Marxist boy, looking at the history of your Progressive (a "softer" version of Marxism) Marxists/Communists idols... what justice/morality was gained by the people these despots brutally ruled or attempted to rule?

Leftists like you only feel important when people react to what you believe is your spurious superiority. Arrogance and contempt is your defense against feeling jealous of others and their success. Drones like you attempt to ruin others' happiness, relentlessly, obsessively trying to destroy whatever reminds you of your own shortcomings and failures.

The irony that drones and loonies like you face is that you always unwittingly bring about what you most fear… REJECTION.

Adios, funny little subversive Marxist boy... your corrosive delusion always brings about the same results... eventually withering into nothingness and emptiness.

subversive Marxist boy| 1.15.11 @ 4:00PM

I don't know what you just said, but it made me smile. :) Have a good one.

youfamissm| 1.14.11 @ 2:04PM

The entire Progressive tempest, was, in part, lobbing the softball for Egobama. Paint the opponent as extreme. Amp up the rhetoric on your side. Ego steps in and calms the fray.

Democrats needed a crisis - death stepped up. Democrats mopped up the blood from the pavement, smeared it all over themselves, and the Democrat campaign is properly annoited - like any Code Pink rally.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 4:26PM

Quote Obama saying something partisan about this event.
You can't.
You're just running your mouth, repeating headlines.

rdman| 1.15.11 @ 4:11PM

Your shallow reply to 'youfamissm' reveals that you don't have a clue understanding "subversive tactics."

That also reveals that you are little more than a useful idiot... a tool!!

Couldn't resist a final shot... HAHAHA

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 4:25PM

Cool story dude. You should write a book.

Youfamissim| 1.14.11 @ 2:07PM

STAMMON is Right. Each state has their own rules. Why we don't have a uniform firearm law is a question that goes begging. I guess State's Rights are only important when issues Democrats can't win are at stake.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.14.11 @ 2:14PM

Folks,
Kingofthenet and ilk are NOT simply trolls. Let's get serious with ourselves.
They are propagandists plain and simple.
They won't change any minds here. There is simply too much wisdom and cultural confidence here.
Welcome them!
That way we get to keep up on the latest insanities thay are pushing.
Heh, they keep us on our toes if you will.

Further, they demonstrate daily their own death-wishes and the death wishes for our society. My suggestion is that each of us sane posters pucker our lips..then pray for them....for if they don't repent, they will surely die...The Death Unto Eternity. So sayeth the Bible.

Stephanie| 1.14.11 @ 2:23PM

Go Ken! Wise words indeed.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 3:01PM

What is the purpose of a democracy filled with people who refuse to ever have their minds changed by reason?

(This not a partisan question.)

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 3:18PM

Nicholas,

I wouldn't know. I live in a constitutional republic.
What's left of it, anyway.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 3:45PM

yes yes, very good, you took an American Government class in high school.

The question still applies.

John Navratil| 1.15.11 @ 1:09PM

Are we begging the question? First provide any argument that people will not change their minds other than the anecdote that YOU can't change their minds. Then acknowledge that a democracy is not and has never been comprised of politically like-minded people.

The purpose of democracy is to have a government according to the will of the people. That is its definition. Part of that is that not everyone will agree with you.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 4:17PM

"They won't change any minds here."

Bob Grant| 1.15.11 @ 4:41PM

Your story has become tiresome, touch my monkey!

martin j smith| 1.14.11 @ 3:26PM

I heard that Mark Levnin is threatening to sue a host of MSM yakers. I say--that is exactly what is needed. Law suits may be THE WAY to make folks who lie for a living stop their behavior. Perhaps there ought to be a Class Action law suite made against MSM liars. One theory this is all happening is that the Democrat (ic? ) party anticipates a bad economic situation by 2012 due to inflation and food shortages and high price of fuel among other things.What better way to deflect from this issue than create a diversion. This"vitriole" is such a diversion.

DaveS| 1.14.11 @ 3:59PM

The Left is in the impossible position of winning on ideas. What's left? For mature persons, not much. For the immature, the Left will talk its way into the pants like a teenage boy does his girl.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 4:18PM

Vague diatribe + zero substance = typical moron who has picked a political "team" and stuck with it, tooth and nail, for no good reason.

John Navratil| 1.15.11 @ 1:12PM

Assuming 'vague diatribe' and 'zero substance'. How does this equate to 'typical moron'. Sounds like a typical 'ad hominem' to me.

Could it be that the write prefers his "team" for reasons good enough for him (perhaps not for you). Why did you pick your "team"?

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 2:03PM

I use the word "team" because so many people on this site, and in this country choose to align themselves with a political party in the same way that they align themselves with a sports team.

I didn't pick a team. While I insult the Republicans for being irresponsible, I will equally insult the Democrats for being incompetent.

John Navratil| 1.15.11 @ 2:26PM

Sure they do! I'm a conservative who gave up on the Republicans during the Bush-1 adminstration. I vote, generally, Republican with a clothes pin on my nose, but always vote the candidate.

I don't know why people pick sports teams (I don't follow sports), but notice that in Houston it's about half and half Dems and Reps, but mostly Texans fans. On the basis of that anecdote, I question your assumption.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 4:16PM

Good point. You'd think in America, more people would be American fans. If we were all American fans there'd be more, "I disagree, but there's no reason we can't talk about it, because we both love America." Unfortunately, we get "JUST SAY NO!" instead.

Bob Grant| 1.16.11 @ 1:29PM

Back to your moderate tone are we? ...Too late champ, you cannot undue your previous posts.

Nicholas| 1.16.11 @ 2:04PM

I'm moderate when I'm not talking to fundamentalists, homophobes, racists, and conspiracy theorists.
However, in this venue, where everyone is the most extreme of the right-wing, there's no helping looking like a leftist socialist in this crowd.

George True| 1.16.11 @ 8:55PM

Let's see.....no less than five ad hominem attacks in just two short sentences. Yep, that's a braniwashed lefty all right.

Bob Grant| 1.16.11 @ 9:42PM

Slanderous. homophobes, racists?

explain?

Nicholas| 1.17.11 @ 1:58AM

Bob Grant, poke your head around the website a bit.

Bob Grant| 1.17.11 @ 8:41AM

Maye you should move on, each one of your arguments seemed to have fizzled.

Nicholas| 1.17.11 @ 10:30AM

Based on what?

I'm sticking around. This site is my new entertainment whenever I need to procrastinate.

Louis Jenkins| 1.14.11 @ 4:08PM

Dear Mr. Smith:

We should fully well expect a bad economic situation in the USA come 2012, maybe sooner. The government is printing money left and right, gold is out the ceiling, and silver not far behind, gas will go up and out the roof, and food, well, I bet you've been shopping lately and it doesn't look good. Don't even look at the other accompanying price increases, but they're there. Look at the situation and prepare. I fully well expect a third flag incident, maybe involving a Tea Party person, who knows? Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Dixie Pixie| 1.14.11 @ 4:40PM

This whole FUBAR is classic Obama tactics.

First........ Pick a Target who is in the way of Socialist advancement.
Second....Send the deniable minions out to demonize the Target with baseless charges.
Third.......Provoke the Target into maximum outrage until they are ready to settle for anything positive.
Fourth......Obama steps in as a classic "Good Guy" for reconciliation.
Fifth.........Obama stages a public"Summit" where the Target is forced to disgorge a Socialist objective.
Sixth........Obama minions with glorious fanfare declare the "Crisis" is over and it is a time for national reconciliation at the Targets expense.
Seventh....Obama dispenses the political goodies to his minions and studiously ignores the political, economic and physical damage the "Crisis" has caused.
Eighth.......Lay low and look for another "Crisis" to exploit for Obama's personal and political gain.

To Obama words are merely a tools for the exploitative manipulation of others for personal gain.
Word and speeches are pretty pastel watercolors meant to impress, deceive, confuse, obscure and manipulate symbols for Obama's benefit.
In short, Obama's words do not mean anything especially to Obama.

The funny thing is most foreign leaders have figured out Obama's exploitative games.
They also have realized Obama's promises are worthless as he has no desire to fulfill them.
Simply put Obama does not have any integrity in any form
They have come to understand the goodwill of Obama's minions and supporters are as useful as a malignant tumor.
So giving in to Obama's demands is far worse than blowing off Obama.
After all Obama and his minions have already done their worst, why not simply turn the tables on him.

Too bad the Republicans have not figured out how to handle Obama.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 4:53PM

Did you copy and paste that from Beck's website, or were you taking notes during the show?

Dixie Pixie| 1.14.11 @ 6:39PM

Greetings Nicholas

I have just finished reading "Radical in Chief" by NRO's Stanley Kurtz.
Using that information and past history of Obama's tactics I put together a quick synopsis.
I had no idea that Glen Beck said anything about this subject.

Using the above chart I think Obama is at the 4th stage going to the 5th stage.
Look for a Obama summit meeting sometime soon where Obama revels his true demands.

It is my belief that Obama is a committed Socialist who advances his policies by stealth, deception and media induced extortion.
Unlike the other ??Great?? Socialists, Obama advances by deceptive increments rather than "Risk Big, Win Big" open power plays.
Obama may be far more dangerous than his predecessors because he is far less open about his agenda.

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 7:25PM

That is pretty paranoid. Where were you when Bush/Cheney were funneling money to their war buddies?

Dixie Pixie| 1.14.11 @ 9:11PM

Greetings Nicholas
Any relation to the Claus Family, North Pole?

I can affirm that with that with the Federal Government paranoid is not a state of mind, but is a survival instinct.

I will forgive you of the Bush/Cheney crack if you can make my new Christmas list happen.

PS.... Read the book.
Stanley Kurtz makes a very good argument for Obama as a Socialist schemer.

Bob Grant| 1.14.11 @ 9:44PM

Cui Bono!!!

I never understood why Bush/Cheney haters kept pushing this argument...

...oh yea I do, their audience is dumber than gum that's stuck to the bottom of my shoe. These are the same people who believe Cuba's health care system is superior to ours (Actually. Scratch that. It might be in a few years).

How would it benefit Bush/Cheney to "funnel money to their war buddies" when the risk/reward would prevent anyone who breathes air from doing so?

Er. Not to get off topic.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 1:34AM

Or, maybe it was all the obvious ties the 2, especially Cheney, have to the war business.
There's a lot of money at making war, so long as you're not the taxpayer.

Bob Grant| 1.15.11 @ 10:18AM

Again, Cui Bono

How did/do THEYYYY!!!! (Bush/Cheney) benefit????

Or were they just such good friends that they would risk jail time to funnel money to their war-mongering buddies with nothing to gain for themselves?

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 11:07AM

It's strange to me how quickly you guys will accept that Obama is committing some crazy, convoluted socialist conspiracy, but completely ignore common knowledge about our previous administration's corruption.

"[Haliburton] has become the object of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million.[40] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[41] Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton.[42]

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid.[43]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#Controversies

This search took me 2 seconds. If you're really interested in political corruption, you could dig up miles of corruption surrounding the wars.

Anthony| 1.15.11 @ 11:56AM

Query: What do folks like Nicholas and Ronald Reagan Jr. have in common? They both take a slight amount of truth, mix it with copious amounts of urban legends and leftist lies, wait a sufficient amount of time in order for the fictions to become indistinguishable from the facts, and VOILA, you have the world according the the left.
This leftist tactic works particularly well when slander of name and reputation is called for. Halliburton has become an urban leftist legend. The lies, the distortions, and the omissions have marked Halliburton as one of the left's best straw dogs.
Halliburton was the" go to" company for the Clinton adnimistration with no bid contracts. There are few companies world wide that can do what Halliburton can do. Slumberger is perhaps its only competition.
As to the pathetic Ron Reagan Jr., books have been written abouts poor lads like Jr. and their pathologies with their famous fathers.
However the modus operendi I just outlined remains the same. Too bad Jr. you don't have the respect for your father as you should. Great men don't deserve perfidious sons like you. You are a pitiful son.
Fortunately for Sarah Palin, her children don't suffer from Jrs. affliction.

Bob Grant| 1.15.11 @ 1:38PM

Couldn't agree more.

What was the purpose of him rehashing the issue other than to diminish his father? He did not have to remind everyone, for the 1,000th time, that he and his father differed on politics but that does not give him carte blanche to air his family laundry in public. To rake his dad through the mud, yet again, is like death by a thousand cuts. I suppose honor thy father is too much to ask of him.

Regarding Halliburton, yes, their company specializes in services related to destruction, rebuilding, and oil. Do they profit when America goes to war, of course. This is a fact, but not illegal.

Cheney: Like every other CEO, they receive an unfairly large severance package. What's the solution? >>> nothing if you prefer the lesser of the two evils.

As far as "funneling money to his buddies", your implication is that he broke laws which is grossly slanderous.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 1:23PM

Nicholas,

Were you to do the research you ask us to do, you would know that the Pentagon solicits bids from large engineering companies (Bechtel, Fluor, etc.) for unspecified work in advance of requirements. Halliburton won the bid before the wars. The purpose of this is quite simple and innocent. When you need a camp built, for example, in time of crisis, there is no time for the typical procurement process. As you are quite aware these expenses are audited. It is from these audits that billing errors were found. You cannot argue that the fix was in when it so obviously was not.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 1:56PM

Bob Grant, I don't think I'm being slanderous. Iraq was an illegal war that was pushed for by Cheney. That is not a controversial statement. There are so many accounts of the fact, coming from people as high up as Bush, that to suggest otherwise is fairly absurd. You might choose to soften or rephrase the statement, but it essentially remains the same idea.

That being a given, you don't think Cheney had any grasp on who would directly benefit from that war? It certainly wasn't the American people.

Anyway, I'm digressing. My point was that it's really bizarre how easily rightwingers pick up loony conspiracy theories about Obama and his "Socialist Agenda" based on very little, but completely ignore allegations that have far more substantive evidence for conspiracy and corruption when it comes to people they agree with.

It's hard to take seriously anyone that is so adamant about an Obama conspiracy, which is yet to be seen, when there is a treasure trove of information concerning the last guys that these same conspiracy theorists CHOOSE to ignore.

John Navratil| 1.15.11 @ 2:19PM

Nicholas,

"Iraq was an illegal war that was pushed for by Cheney. That is not a controversial statement."

Please provide evidence for the illegality of this war when it was authorized by Congress in "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002". I submit my response as evidence that this statement IS controversial. Your second statement is simply as false as your first. That suggesting otherwise is absurd is an absurdity, itself.

Cheney left Halliburton in 2000 and UNDER PUBLIC PRESSURE sold his shares. All economic ties to Halliburton we severed before 9/11. Relating this to who would benefit from the war is specious. Businesses are in business to provide services at a profit. That you don't like businesses profiting from a war effort is clear, but is completely unrelated to any question of whether the American people benefitted. You are comparing monetary profits with security; it is a case you have not made.

So where is this "substantive evidence for conspiracy and corruption". Are you suggesting that those holding oversight roles from 2006 on have found it? Did they look? We had the Plame affair and the DOJ being subpoenaed and other oversight of the White House, but Congress was too busy to get around to looking for this? Please!

As you are, no doubt, aware a conspiracy is two or more plotting to commit a crime. For the record, I don't need conspiracy theories to consider Obama a Socialist and I don't need to allege any crime. His policies are clear. He means for government to control vast areas of the economy. That is the textbook definition of Socialism.

So, please don't take us seriously. We don't think much of your ideas, either.

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 4:02PM

"please don't take us seriously"

Deal.

John Navratil| 1.15.11 @ 5:55PM

And with that Nicholas ran off into the sunset to save some other soul. (No need to actually address any refutation of your points, was there).

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 6:25PM

Sorry, my suspension of disbelief neurons aren't firing anymore. Too much blind right-wing rationalizing for one day.

Dixie Pixie| 1.15.11 @ 7:13PM

Nicholas
Does anyone on the left know the history of US Politics????

The Democrats invented the "Spoils System" to deliberately divert Federal money into their supporters pocket in exchange for their political support.
The Public Service reforms were a direct result of Democratic Party corruption and only partly solved the problems.
What Halliburton did was legal and was only a drop in the Amazon river of diverted Federal money by the Democrats.
Just this last summer Nancy Pelosi convened a special session of Congress to divert 49 billion dollars to the public sector unions so they could support the Democratic reelection efforts.

Nickolas....In the spirit of national reconciliation, I offered to forgive you if you did one simple thing.
Instead you went on a rampage against a Democratic Party "straw-man".
Does this mean you want no part in peace and rational discussion and will promote "Hate Speech" whenever possible????

????Have You No Shame Sir????

Todd S| 1.15.11 @ 7:29PM

I can assure you he has no shame at all, see the discussion I had with him above this one. One of the lowest scumbag trolls to ever visit this site.

Nicholas| 1.16.11 @ 12:49AM

What? Because I asked you if Jesus was a mother fucker? It was a legitimate question, and you didn't even bother to answer. Maybe you should dream about it, and then we can talk about it in the morning?

John Navratil| 1.16.11 @ 9:01AM

Nicholas,

You might add "Immaculate Conception", "Virgin Birth" and "Original Sin" to the list of topics you seem to know nothing about.

Note, I am not asking you to be a believer. This is an observation that a religious discussion with an iconoclast is impossible. Your post is repugnant, but I suspect that is as you wanted it.

post*tenebras*lux| 1.15.11 @ 7:00AM

Dixie Pixie...too bad the Republicans have not figured out how to handle Obama. There are multiple "strong" conservative analysts', opinionists', bloggers', columnists' who have this past week "enabled" Obama by their support of his speech. How do you handle that as a Republican? And now, they are subtly propping up Mitt Romney as "the" one. Sarah Palin stands true against the machine (the good ole boys and the liberal maniacs). If even one of these so called conservatives immersed themselves with holy scripture as she does they would realize that her use of the words "blood libel" were a part of who she is. My opinion is that she didn't just "pick" these words out of thin air; they are a part of who she is. And truth be know, "they" are scared (the good old boys). She is going to upset their applecart bigtime!

Dixie Pixie| 1.15.11 @ 11:45PM

Greetings Post Lux
Interesting Handle.
I am not sure where you intend to go with the concept of the dimming of light before the explosion of the light of Christ's Resurrection.
But if it works for you, who am I to nitpick.

Please accept my apology for the lateness of my response.
Yours was the hardest to compose a reply.

I am of two minds on if the Republicans understand Obama.
For the last two years they did not have the ability to stop him or the Demo's.
Thus they could not demonstrate they had the knowledge to outmaneuver him.
In the 112th Congress they will be in a better position.
Only time will tell on this one.

On Sister Sarah Palin, She is one of the few politicians that speaks from the heart.
Her words are true, pure and heartfelt.
Best of all, her words resonate with the large part of the Conservatives.
I think she represents the best of Conservationism and would make a fine President.
I also think she is a far too good lady for the dirty world of today’s politics.
I fear the demons of Leftism will drag her down into the slime pits in which they dwell.
It is a horror to see her so slimed.

As always, I await your reply.

ken (Old Texican)| 1.14.11 @ 4:52PM

Pixie,
I understand the Republicans are going into a "sealed retreat" this weekend.

hopefully they can scheme up an across the board.....NO!
Just stop everything in Congress...just stop it until the communists, (pardon the shorthand), come begging to pay off their bought votes...heh...then say NO again.

Dixie Pixie| 1.14.11 @ 7:12PM

Greetings Ken (New Texican Writer)

Not being a part of the Republican Party hierarchy nor have any close contacts there, I have no idea what they will do.
The Republicans have surprised me before.

For example, I did not expect the Republicans to hang together for the last two years like they did.
I fully expected John McCain and the RINOs to defect to Obama for scraps of power.
They instead regrouped to win big in 2010.
I think they have figured out how Obama thinks and can outmaneuver him now.

PS..... What did you think of my synopsis.
Did you think my little note helped the other TAS readers.
I await your reply.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.15.11 @ 9:08AM

Pixie,
I hope you have created a word document to preserve posts like yours above. When you boot up your computer, just add the document to the menu on the bottom of your screen...to have it handy for copy/paste.
I certainly save posts like yours above. Well done.
and...you will probably see the thoughts there popping up in full blown columns either here and/or at American Thinker.

Dixie Pixie| 1.15.11 @ 8:55PM

Done and Done, Ken (Famous Texican Writer)

I do appreciate the feedback.
Sometimes I feel I am throwing my best ideas into a sand pit simply to see it go "splat" without a sound.

A post is best when it is like a pebble thrown into a lake.
The concepts and idea's in the post should radiate out like waves on a lake inspiring others take up those ideas to throw them like other pebbles / posts into the lake.
With luck the the ideas and concepts should interact like waveforms on a lake creating new combinations and interactions of ideas.

Feedback is a necessary part of that process as it illuminates the waveforms of ideas.
Without it it is just like a lake at night.
One can hear the "plop--plop" of ideas but can not see the interaction of the resulting waves.

So keep that feedback coming and I will do the same.

Wayne | 1.15.11 @ 1:58PM

I agree to a large extent, but I think they blew it during the lame duck session. Why did so many vote for repeal of DADT, food bill, nanny bill, Start Treaty? They should have held firm till the new Congress. I could only think of Reagan saying "here we go again?"

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 5:31PM

I think they voted for the Start Treaty so that we can continue monitoring Russia's nuclear weapons... That used to be largely bipartisan before the motto became "just say no."

Dixie Pixie| 1.15.11 @ 10:45PM

Greetings Wayne

The Demo's knew they would have full control after the 2010 election cycle, that is why they back-loaded the legislative process. If they front-loaded their agenda then their Machiavellian maneuverings would be obvious. They knew they would take a even greater "shellacking" than they did if their plans were known.

I was not surprised at their deceptions nor should you be.
I was surprised the Republicans stopped the Federal Budget Bill.
That would have solidified their spending plans for 2011.
The Republicans should justly take credit for stopping the Democrats where they could.

Bilwick| 1.14.11 @ 5:19PM

Were Voltaire, Thomas Paine or the writers of the Cato Letters "civil"? Just wondering.

Nick| 1.14.11 @ 8:18PM

Hey, all you liberals out there!

When are going to call for an immediate end to all the violent death speech from your lefty kook bretheren?

Bob Grant| 1.14.11 @ 9:28PM

Would that mean the end of Rap?...oh dayum!

Stupe Dogg| 1.15.11 @ 12:40PM

What ?
No Mo Nizzle Rap ?

Shiznit !

Oh I get it!| 1.15.11 @ 4:28PM

It's funny because it's racist! HAHAHAAHA! I love it!

Bob Grant| 1.15.11 @ 4:58PM

Ummmm. Really?

Does one race have a monopoly on such nonsensical gibberish? ...call it what you will.

(I must be bored responding to this)

WindSong| 1.15.11 @ 1:27AM

http://www.debbieschlussel.com.....te-crimes/

Obama Voters?

martin j smith| 1.15.11 @ 8:24AM

I am not on a personal campaign--not running for any office-but to promote the idea that this terrible assasination in Arizona has become ( and purposely ) a diversion from more critical and serious matters happening now and on the horizon getting worse.
Inflation
Fuel prices
Food prices
The deficit
ObamaCare.
These are the real issues.
BUT AT LOUIS JENKINS SUGGESTS THE DEMOCRAT(IC ? ) PARTY IS SCHEMING.. not maybe but definitely . it is imperative that the slightest deviation from "uncivil discourse" be called out especially uttered by Obama. We say, hell no just not #*$%^ ! No

martin j smith| 1.15.11 @ 8:24AM

I am not on a personal campaign--not running for any office-but to promote the idea that this terrible assasination in Arizona has become ( and purposely ) a diversion from more critical and serious matters happening now and on the horizon getting worse.
Inflation
Fuel prices
Food prices
The deficit
ObamaCare.
These are the real issues.
BUT AT LOUIS JENKINS SUGGESTS THE DEMOCRAT(IC ? ) PARTY IS SCHEMING.. not maybe but definitely . it is imperative that the slightest deviation from "uncivil discourse" be called out especially uttered by Obama. We say, hell no just not #*$%^ ! No

martin j smith| 1.15.11 @ 8:24AM

I am not on a personal campaign--not running for any office-but to promote the idea that this terrible assasination in Arizona has become ( and purposely ) a diversion from more critical and serious matters happening now and on the horizon getting worse.
Inflation
Fuel prices
Food prices
The deficit
ObamaCare.
These are the real issues.
BUT AT LOUIS JENKINS SUGGESTS THE DEMOCRAT(IC ? ) PARTY IS SCHEMING.. not maybe but definitely . it is imperative that the slightest deviation from "uncivil discourse" be called out especially uttered by Obama. We say, hell no just not #*$%^ ! No

Melvin | 1.15.11 @ 12:31PM

Here is something to chew on people. Now this is hypothetical mind you. But what would you say if Americans were to embrace the Tunisian model of dealing with a corrupt and out of touch government?
The Tunisians seemed to achieved very good results in a relatively short amount of time. Not that I'm advocating anything mind you, but something worthy of chewing on.

martin j smith| 1.15.11 @ 1:43PM

hey Melvin remeber American Exceptionalism? We are not Tunisia and don't develop Amnesia !!!!!!!!!!!!
If the Robos on the LEFT want to "act out" we on the RIGHT SIDE need to correct their programming.

We are dealing with Robots not people. Correct, Contain and Control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lisa| 1.15.11 @ 2:09PM

Sad fact is that every poltical assassination or attempted poltical assassination in American history has been carried out by some one who ID'ed himself/herself with the Left, even John Wilkes Booth.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a Classic Commie, but those "evil" Cons were responsible for JFK's death, so pronounced the Fourth Estate.

Were Giffords a Republican, would Barack "Hit Back Twice as Hard" Obama have gone to Tuscon to lecture Americans on the need to be civil? Doubt it!

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 4:13PM

Sounds made up. Put your head back in the sand.

mames| 1.15.11 @ 6:05PM

"sounds made up" I can assure you it is not "made up". Do your homework. The left including this whack job from Tucson has most often been the guilty party. THIS CLOWN WAS NOT NEUTRAL IN HIS VIEWS HE WAS PISSED OFF THAT HIS REP WAS NOT MORE IN ALIGNMENT WITH MARX WHICH IS WHY HE SHOT HER, and anyone between he and her!

Nicholas| 1.15.11 @ 6:32PM

Definitely made up.
I think his friend said he was mad because she didn't understand his question about how grammar is controlling our brains, or something crazy like that.

But, I'm sure you can find plenty of right-wing blogs that will ignore the facts in order to support your mythology.

It's been well established that he was an insane person. His political positions were completely incoherent.

Dixie Pixie| 1.15.11 @ 11:00PM

Greetings Again Nickolas

The fact he was quite insane does not mean he was wrong tn the particulars.
He was quite correct in that the Liberals try to control the population through the manipulation of symbols and language.
That is a skill widely taught throughout the Ivy League.
Obama's speech was a perfect example of the point he was trying to make.

Nicholas| 1.16.11 @ 12:52AM

So you're saying that his crazy conspiracies were aligned with those supported by conservatives? Very interesting....

Dixie Pixie| 1.16.11 @ 11:40AM

Nicholas....Do you even bother to read and comprehend the reasoned replies to your deranged hate speech. Or is comprehension far too much trouble so you automatically spew out preconditioned liberal Pavlovian responses.

Nicholas| 1.16.11 @ 1:47PM

I read your comment. Do you understand your comments when you're writing them.

"The fact he was quite insane does not mean he was wrong tn the particulars."
Does that, or doesn't that, suggest that you agree with him? You even go on to defend and weakly provide evidence for his logic.
What other conclusion is there for me to jump to, other than you, a conservative, agree with the same conspiracy theories espoused by the Tuscon terrorist?

Dixie Pixie| 1.16.11 @ 6:11PM

Nickolas.... Your need to associate anything negative with conservatism is almost pathological.
Is this a common condition of the other inhabitants of your current netherworld.

The theory and practice of manipulating a populace using language predates the Tuscon Shooting by thousands of years and is called Rhetoric. The fact the Loughner knew and disliked a common practice known for millenniums certainly has nothing to do with conservatism. Your trying to associate any conservative with the shooting is deliberately illogical and insulting.

The funny thing, Nickolas is you are confirming the underlining meme of the main article.
You seem to be trying to confirm that the primary mode of Liberal political debate is hate speech.
Was that your intent?

Nicholas| 1.16.11 @ 7:23PM

That's not how you spell my name.

I didn't try to associate anything. You specifically confirmed that you, a conservative, agreed with his conspiracy theory. That doesn't necessarily mean anything for the greater state of conservatism, I just found it an interesting comment in the sea of right-wingers trying to claim that this insane person was a lefty.

I don't think he was politically affiliated: I think he was insane. I have said this repeatedly.

I think the word you're searching for is 'propaganda.' Maybe that's what you were talking about, though you framed it as if you agreed with Loughner.
He, on the other hand, was ranting about how the government is using "grammar" to control our minds. That is something that a paranoid schizophrenic person would say. With your paranoid list about Obama's secret scheme, I was prone to think you were agreeing with Loughner.

Nick| 1.16.11 @ 7:34PM

You're right.
This is how you spell your name: C - R - A - P.

Go away, anti-Christian bigot.
And stop using my name.

Nicholas| 1.17.11 @ 1:55AM

I'm overcome. We've all just witnessed staggering genius. Everyone bow down to such great wit.

Nick| 1.17.11 @ 4:03PM

Crap,

I'm giving you exactly the amount of respect you deserve: None.

nicholas| 1.18.11 @ 1:53AM

Young man, you're going to hurt my feelings if you keep using such foul language. You used the c-r-a-p word twice now. I'm going to pray to Jeezus Almighty, but I don't know if she'll forgive you.

MrsJEP| 1.15.11 @ 7:22PM

But what if he had been a member of the Tea Party?
Then he would never have done what he did, because he would have been sane.

Nicholas| 1.16.11 @ 1:00AM

Yes... Instead he'd be dressing up as an 18th century revolutionary and screaming about how the new president isn't American because he's half black. Definitely no one would have mistaken him for an insane person...

George True| 1.16.11 @ 9:05PM

I never heard it reported that any tea party member expressed such a thing. You would think that the mainstream media would have been all over that. How could they have possibly missed such a think? Perhaps because it didn't really happen?

Whoosh!| 1.17.11 @ 2:43AM

So true, George True. Teabaggers have to use code language, calling him a Kenyan or Muslim, to express their distaste for the color of his skin.

Good catch.

MrK| 1.15.11 @ 8:05PM

By the reasoning of the left, if one member of a group commits a crime (even though Tea Party members have yet to commit a crime), then all members of the group are guilty of being capable of committing the same crime. So, one can only surmise that, in using a random example of a teacher who molested and raped his/her student, then all teachers are time bombs waiting to molest and rape their students. Now, how would teachers or teachers unions like having accusations as dispicable as that leveled at them when they are only trying to teach kids? That is what the left does to people who only want less spending and more attention paid to The Constitution, except they go even further and accuse these people preemptively. Makes no sense, but that's how the left rolls.

Nick| 1.16.11 @ 4:15PM

Even a lefty American terrorist like Mark Rudd, one of the founders of the Weather Underground, knows that political rhetoric had NOTHING to do with the atrocity in Tucson.

Why can't all you bleeding heart liberals be as reasonable as a repentant former terrorist?
(hat tip to HotAir)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....id=topnews

Nick| 1.16.11 @ 4:33PM

Here is a great blog post about the similarity between President Lincoln and Sarah Palin. Again, thanks to HotAir.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028136.php

Tom in Michigan| 1.16.11 @ 7:03PM

The left owns violence in politics. The left gave the Weathermen, whose members include Obama pals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn whose hands are indeed, stained with blood. In fact, Ayers' girl friend was blown to smithereens while making bombs to set off at a non-commissioned officers' ball.

One of the most egregious examples I can cite is failed prog talk-radio "star" Rhandi Rhodes saying, on-air, mind you, "Somebody should come up behind this guy (referring to George W. Bush) and, peeephewwwww! (Sorry, that's the best imitation of a richocheting bullet I can come up with in print. I'm open to suggestions, though). This was a clear invitation to Presidential assassination.

Nicholas| 1.16.11 @ 7:39PM

The Weathermen was an organization that existed 40 years ago. Find a better example.
The Oklahoma City bombing wasn't quite so long ago though...

Or, listen to your fellow conservatives and realize that this was an apolitical attack perpetrated by an insane person.

Here's something you'll fine interesting:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....extremism/

It talks about left-wing extremists as well, and is from fox, so no one can claim i'm being partisan.

Tina B| 1.16.11 @ 9:34PM

My gosh, Nicholas, you exhaust me. I think my mom would have called you pigheaded. She used to call me that too. I can be.

Your comment about Christ was really offensive. Not even close to a joke.

So who or what is your god, Nicholas? Is it money, success, power, sex, your children, wife, husband, boyfriend, girlfriend, your political beliefs, technology? Something.
Something is your god and it is filling that God-shaped hole inside of you and, I believe, if you don't wake up, it may seal your eternal doom. I will pray for you. (this will, of course, offend you)

If there is a God, (and I know there is) and if the Judeo-Christian God is He, and His only begotten Son is Jesus Christ, you are playing with fire.

You are publicly mocking Him, and although He has a sense of humor, as He must in order to put up with and constantly bless the likes of me, He may find you offensive. If He exists.
Just sayin'. :-

Nicholas| 1.17.11 @ 1:52AM

Don't project your existential insecurities on to me.

Jullou| 1.18.11 @ 1:43AM

Hey you conservative media forces out there, how about quoting Saul Alinsky when you refer to the letstists/statists/Democrats/progressives/liberals/ruling class; they are using this Alinsky rule #13 on Palin, Rush, Beck and anyone that shines the light of truth on them:

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (Rules for Radicals, pps.127-134)

sex toys| 7.4.11 @ 1:11AM

Hey I pair your style I instrument concur for your take gratify remain transmitting!
Thanks

Adidas| 8.11.11 @ 5:37AM

is good

العاب| 4.10.12 @ 12:45PM

Sorry Nick... my post was directed at the Lefty Nicholas.