Time magazine’s Joe Klein complained about the legal appearance of openly-carried weapons at protests against President Obama during a segment on CNN’s Newsroom on Monday, and labeled the protests against ObamaCare as a “celebration of ignorance and misinformation.” Anchor Rick Sanchez and his other guest also falsely characterized one of the guns carried at a recent protest.
Sanchez first asked Klein about the appearance of guns at several recent protests against President Obama outside his health care town hall events or speeches: “Joe, I don’t remember people protesting against President Bush showing up with weapons. Do you?” The Time columnist answered, “No. I’ve been doing this for almost 40 years now, and I’ve never seen anything like this. There should be like a Second Amendment equivalent of the First Amendment- shouting fire in a crowded theater.”
The CNN anchor expressed his agreement with this analogy, and the columnist continued with his point, and included his label of the anti-ObamaCare protesters: “I mean...there is a right to bear arms....But there’s also a right to protect the president and a right to sanity, and this is clearly getting quite out of hand. You know, what we’ve seen this month is pretty frightening in general. We’ve seen- you know, the celebration of ignorance and misinformation in this health care battle, and- you know, this, more than almost any other issue I can think of, is one where we need to be clear-headed and- you know, lay out the facts and let people decide the facts.”
Sanchez followed up by commenting that the Secret Service has “their hands full, don’t they?” Klein replied, “Yeah, I was just out with the president over the weekend in Montana and Colorado, and there are an awful lot of- the Secret Service does an amazing job....But there are an awful lot of angry people out there, and most of them, I got to say, are misinformed.”
Klein earlier expressed his disgust with the anti-ObamaCare demonstrators in an August 12 post on Time’s Swampland blog: “The cruelty inherent in scaring the elderly to score political points is beyond reprehensible.... [T]he sort of scurrilous campaign they are conducting--the seditious fear-mongering that is the main staple of their public diet--is a matter of profound disrespect and incivility toward the individuals whose rights they claim to cherish.”
Earlier in the hour, Sanchez asked White House correspondent Ed Henry about the young black gentleman who appeared at a protest with an AR-15 outside the VFW convention in Phoenix where President Obama was giving a speech. He characterized the weapons as an “assault rifle.” He used the same label in his first question to Patricia Murphy of PoliticsDaily.com, his other guest during the segment with Klein: “What do you think of these people showing up at the Obama events with these weapons?...I mean, this guy is- that’s a heck of a piece there, man. That’s an AR-15. That’s an assault rifle.”
Murphy, a former staffer for Democratic Senators Sam Nunn and Max Cleland, expressed her horror at this development:
MURPHY: Yeah. I mean- to me, that’s really quite terrifying, and I’ve talked to a lot of people in politics- out of politics, who said this entire debate is starting- it’s inching closer and closer to a place that everybody is afraid to even think about, that something- anger will turn to violence. And I think having an automatic weapon at one of these events is exactly how something like that happens. It may be legal, but it’s a terrible idea. It’s absolutely terrifying to me.
The civilian AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, not an “automatic weapon” as Murphy put it. It also cannot be accurately described as an “assault rifle,” as Sanchez labeled it, because an assault rifle, by definition, is a selective-fire weapon, with either fully-automatic or semi-automatic capability. Leave it to three liberals to get it wrong on guns.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Liberalism is so easy...
August 17, 2009 - 18:09 ET by allanfYou just stick out your finger, wag it, and tell others how to live their lives.
deviant
August 17, 2009 - 20:13 ET by sawing battaif liberals really wanted to insure more people, they could and with broad bipartisan support. This isnt about expanding coverage, it's about expanding Government coverage.
not "Shoeless Joe", Shameless Joe.
OK, I got it
August 17, 2009 - 18:15 ET by 10ksnookernow the congressional clunkers are ignorant. And here I thought they were just dumb and not capable of critical thinking.
The lessons of August are many indeed.
Black Panthers, Guns, Election Day
August 17, 2009 - 18:22 ET by sockit2meHey Joe Klein...Hey Rick Sanchez.....did you forget this news item from May 29 2009?
OBAMA DROPS CHARGES AGAINST MENACING BLACK PANTHERS WITH NIGHT STICKS AND WEAPONS WHO BLOCKED POLLING PLACES ON ELECTION DAY
Or Obama pal Bill Ayers who
August 18, 2009 - 09:57 ET by mattmOr Obama pal Bill Ayers who tried to blow up the Pentagon - and isn't sorry about it, Or Ted Kaczynski, or Kathleen Soliah - (blew up cop cars in LA), or Union salters, or Democrat vandals who slashed tires and trashed GOP campaign offices....
Seems to me 'Joke Line' is the ignorant one....
"“Joe, I don’t remember
August 17, 2009 - 18:27 ET by ckc1227"“Joe, I don’t remember people protesting against President Bush showing up with weapons. Do you?”
Why would they? Libs don't believe in the 2nd Amendment.
Right, No Guns
August 17, 2009 - 18:28 ET by PeterDRight, no guns at any anti-Bush rallies. How about making a movie in 2006 depicting the assassination of George W. Bush, Joe and Rick?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/
Left is spelled h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
Don't Tread on Me!
August 17, 2009 - 18:29 ET by bigtimerThe little I saw of msnbc earlier today they were doing the exact same thing...poor little wunderkins don't know what they are messing with really...they truly do not understand the mood of this country, the back-bone, the silent majority at all...not one bit.
Our Constitution and Freedoms Will stand...simple as that.
Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh
BT,, the current gaggle of
August 17, 2009 - 19:11 ET by celatorBT,, the current gaggle of radical socialist libs are being (to use one of their favorite devices) deconstructed before our very eyes.
The political children of the '60's insane Left are sinking in the quicksand their leftist parents threw them in. The professorial class, the Marxist politicians and the media elite are also right there in the quicksand. They cannot save themselves. They are doomed.
It's not a pretty sight, but we must let them thrash around in the mess they have made for themselves.
I honestly wondered for many years whether US citizens would ever wake up and become active citizens again. I think we are witnessing that right now. We must continue this worthy battle.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
so you say you want a revolution?
August 18, 2009 - 02:44 ET by dr_devil_dogso...what are they messing with? enlighten me please. a bunch of hillbilly ignoramus' are going to what? revolt? kill the president? that would be awsome, then we can finally cut loose the deadwood of all you backward ass traitors.
it's the president you dolt! these guys should be escorted back to their cabins. you are getting yourselves into such a tizzy while you just spent eight years watching our country get demolished by the philosophy that you claim to support. it would be funny if you morons werent armed and egging each other on to see who will be the first to be the Big Man.
you are correct on one thing, our constitution and freedoms will stand, with or without your help. you treasonous dogs. joe the plummer would have taken your kind out behind the woodshed and caved yur durn heads in with his size 12 boot. wake the F up already. turn the tv off, walk outside and introduce yourself to an american. if you live in my neighborhood i would be happy to walk you around and introduce you to plenty of sane people.
if you hate your country so much that you cant stand the people in it, maybe its time for you to leave. i hear there are some wonderful little conservative hideaways, dictators for life, you can carry guns, plenty of executions, you would love it.
dr_devil_dog
August 18, 2009 - 04:25 ET by AgnosticI will attempt to ignore what I assume is a deliberate attempt at banality in your post and respond only to those, for lack of better term, points that you bring to the table. Also, I would like to take a little leeway and not respond in posted order.
While I will grant you that there has been the occasional conservative militia style hideaways noted for their ignorance of opinion the great majority of the world that has seen dictators for life and armed militia keeping the people in line with executions have been leftist regimes.
You speak of “watching our country get demolished by the philosophy” by conservative ideas but every single problem with the exception of some foreign relation problems can be traced back to various social programs of the left. Actually there have been so few truly conservative politicians over the last 50 years that it is really amazing that the left puts so much fault at the feet of conservatives. The average Republican has been far closer to McCain than to Reagan. Even Reagan did not try to eradicate opposing political forces as much as the current administration has done and he had the power of a landslide election but of course he had to deal with a disagreeable Congress. The Democrats controlled Congress and there for the laws and purse strings of the nation for almost the entirety of the second half of the last century and yet people who don’t bother looking at American History claim that everything wrong with the world can be blamed on the Republicans because they held both Houses and the Oval Office for six years. Six years in which even the running of two wars didn’t require the amount of spending created by the current administration’s proposals in less than one.
Kill the President? I believe you are projecting the unsatisfied desires of the left over the past eight years onto Conservatives. I will tell you why there is rudeness at the Townhalls if you care to really know but doubt it so I won’t waste your time unless you ask. But rudeness is not a death threat. All the B.S. about a rise in white supremacy has been debunked repeatedly by third party organizations. So that leaves your projections and the stories from unnamed stories about above average death threats which statistically means very little.
I talk everyday to people from all walks of life, races, social standing and political leanings. The one thing I can tell you for sure is that not one of us knows enough to make the rather immature accusations you made in your post. Get out and meet some of the people that perhaps you don’t think are sane and you will fine that while you may disagree on some very key points you will still have more in common than in difference. Best of luck to you!!
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Change your nickname dr_
August 18, 2009 - 06:35 ET by BKeyserNo true teufelhunden would ever refer to you as one of the few...
Semper fi
It's Only Fun
August 18, 2009 - 07:35 ET by Blanca DeBreeIt's only fun until someone climbs the clock tower and starts picking off the town folk.
Of course having seen some of these town folk, a thinning of the herd might not be that bad of an idea.
Thank you
August 18, 2009 - 07:38 ET by BlondeJanet Napolitano!
Or perhaps you are a combination personality...Obama (bitter clingers), Pelosi (anti-american), Garofolo (hillbilly rednecks).
Either way...it must suck to be you. So much anger.
I hope he fails, too.
OK, we'll leave Barack alone...
August 18, 2009 - 07:44 ET by SickofLibs...we don't want you going all hysterical again like the last time.
Not talking to whiners. Not in your neighborhood. not anywhere
August 18, 2009 - 09:10 ET by JWFBigtimer's post set you off? bigtimer?
First off, knock it off with the big talk. You are a 26 year old wussy that has run away from every fight in his life. So the Big Man behind the anonymous moniker flies nowhere. The bigger the talk, the smaller the man.
Looky, what do we have here? The eight years cliche pops out too. Only a whiner that recently got kicked out of daddy's house talks like that. Daddy got tired of your mooching. And now you have the big disappointment when you realize you won't be able to mooch off Uncle Sam either. Poor widdow moochie has to take it out on the nearest stand-in for daddy, conservatives that advocate relying on yourself.
Guess what moochie. Presidents don't have that much influence in our lives. Only whiny moochers think they do. This is a Republic. We are run by the rule of law. Does moochie think there was a big big big change in the law the last eight years?
Guess what else moochie. Presidents are not a fill-in for daddy. You got a problem with daddy? Man up, get an education, get a job, go home and talk to your father like a man. He might start to respect you then.
So take it somewhere else bigot. mooch. bigot that hates people on the right because they won't let you mooch. bigot.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
People, don't feed this
August 18, 2009 - 12:33 ET by G. MayPeople, don't feed this troll. He is clearly the deranged type. Save your "ammo" for the more interesting trolls.
Klein and Sanchez
August 17, 2009 - 18:48 ET by jdlybrand"A Celebration of Arrogance"
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
so i take it it's acceptable
August 17, 2009 - 18:56 ET by cathartic1so i take it it's acceptable for random people to bring weapons into a politcal event then?
What is a
August 17, 2009 - 19:01 ET by doug1950"random" person?
a random person is a random
August 17, 2009 - 19:04 ET by cathartic1a random person is a random person. someone that no one really knows? not sure how to answer your question, really...
Who's the fear monger
August 17, 2009 - 19:15 ET by QueenMumThe man had a permit, was not involved in the protest, and was not arrested.
I would guess that the weapon was not loaded. Again the MsM is the fear-monger.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
QM... As usual, as can be
August 17, 2009 - 19:25 ET by bigtimerQM...
As usual, as can be predicted every chance they get, as they forever try to take our guns/freedoms away...agenda all that matters.
First Class Fools.
Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh
You know what's really
August 17, 2009 - 19:35 ET by QueenMumYou know what's really funny, bt? Arizona is a concealed/carry state. Which means that there could have been even more folks in the crowd carrying concealed weapons, and likely were. Ha. Now that should have Klein and Sanchez shaking in their Bruno Maglis. At least the guy with the "big, scary gun" had his out in full view.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
okay. but that wasn't the
August 17, 2009 - 19:27 ET by cathartic1okay. but that wasn't the only time guns have showed up. this site already sort of covered the other time when chris matthews was speaking to the gentleman who had the gun strapped to his leg.
now we have the secret service stepping in with another person who is going too far as well and threatening the president and his family. and yet no one is seems to be concerned with where all this is going. if anything, this post is only about the technicalities of what guns were there, but no outrage that they are there in the first place....
but no outrage that they
August 17, 2009 - 19:30 ET by bigtimerbut no outrage that they are there in the first place....
Why should there be outrage?
It was/is legal.
Ooh wait a minute...I remember you...you work for msnbc...or did you get demoted to CNN? ;-)
Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh
sure. you're 100% correct
August 17, 2009 - 19:40 ET by cathartic1sure. you're 100% correct on the fact that it's legal. but you don't think that a message is being sent when guns show up? just by the fact that they're there sends a message. that's like me going to the dentist with a gun strapped to my leg carrying a sign that says "i hate getting cavities." i haven't explicitly threatened anyone, but i would argue i'm engaging in unwise behavior that makes people feel threatened.
i wish i worked for either one - i'd get paid more...
Why is a peaceful civilian
August 17, 2009 - 19:54 ET by QueenMumWhy is a peaceful civilian carrying a legal weapon more threatening than a policeman carrying a legal weapon? Especially at a VFW convention.
Added: When you think about it, isn't it rather ironic to consider telling a group of military veterans that you're afraid of them because they're carrying guns?
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
well i think it's a matter
August 17, 2009 - 20:04 ET by cathartic1well i think it's a matter of perspective. you may see a person with a gun and see a sportsman, or a concerned citizen; i, on the other hand, am a bit more paranoid with that. if i see a stranger with a gun, i tend to go in the opposite direction. maybe i'm bigotted, who knows.
as for cops, well cops are charged with protecting the peace. citizens are not. citizens who take the law in their own hands are called vigilantes. (that's not saying i disagree with vigilantism 100%... but some things are better left to professionals).
however, this is getting a bit off topic: this is a post showing the ignorance of those stupid liberals for thinking than an AR15 is an assault rifle... but seems to be either skipping or whitewashing the whole issue of how quickly things are gearing up to a dangerous situation in the future...
"that's like me going to
August 17, 2009 - 19:53 ET by ckc1227"that's like me going to the dentist with a gun strapped to my leg carrying a sign that says "i hate getting cavities."
Yes, it's just like that.
lol......
cat1... All these people
August 17, 2009 - 20:38 ET by bigtimercat1...
All these people showing up at TH Meetings aren't just there to show their distaste for the take over of our free choice of medical care in this country...it's about all of our freedoms being tried to be stripped away slowly but surely behind the scenes/i.e. AG Holder or via congress/HR45...many of us can see this and pay attention...something that just irks the leftist namby-pamby babies that want a cradle to grave take over...
Newsflash....Realists/Constitutionalists don't....and we are saying as such.
Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh
Oh my God! A man carrying a
August 17, 2009 - 19:39 ET by QueenMumOh my God! A man carrying a loaded sign? The Secret Service certainly has its hands full. (sarc off)
Note: No disrespect meant to the Secret Service.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
so are you saying that the
August 17, 2009 - 19:43 ET by cathartic1so are you saying that the secret service shouldn't have followed up? that this really isn't a big deal?
Threatening with a deadly sign
August 17, 2009 - 19:48 ET by QueenMumNot sure. Freedom of speech and all that. Of course, threats to the President need to be taken seriously. It's just that the idea of equating a man holding a threatening sign to a man holding a gun seems a bit incongruous.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
QM: deadly sign.. no
August 17, 2009 - 21:01 ET by SickofLibsI'm not even buying that that particular sign was "threatening"... 99% would never had known what the rest of that T. Jeff. quote was (the blood-spilling part), until the media jumped in on it. This whole episode is a R. Maddow dream come true.
One moron shows up with an exposed gun to make a point (albeit legally), and, voila, he becomes the poster boy for conservative radicalism.
cathartic1, what is your problem with visible firearms?
August 17, 2009 - 19:51 ET by R D HelmHell, I grew up around guns. I used to have to move at least one just to do my friggin' laundry.
And when is the SS going to follow up on the criminals who carry concealed weapons illegally? Never, would be my guess.
Stop being such a puss.
Puss.
LOL-I bet you panic if a car backfires anywhere near you, and I bet a tossed firecracker within 50 feet of you would send you to the hospital shaking like a leaf in a hurricane.
-Dave
i'll admit i don't have a
August 17, 2009 - 19:58 ET by cathartic1i'll admit i don't have a lot of exposure to guns, but honestly, that's not the problem. i think my point is that there are threats to the president both known (per the link above) and unknown, and that guns are now starting to show up at these events. legal? yes. but does it also create a threatening environment? i would also argue yes. i think the people on this show were expressing concern with how the temperment of this whole health care discussion seems to be taking a turn that should have people concerned....
Cat 1
August 17, 2009 - 21:02 ET by kilrodYou might recall that John Hinckley was a seriously deranged young man who shot President Reagan in the early 1980's. Hinckley was absolutely obsessed with movie star Jodie Foster, extremely jealous, and in his twisted mind, loved Jodie Foster to the point that to make himself well known to her, he attempted to assassinate President Reagan. There is speculation Hinckley may soon be released as having been rehabilitated. Consequently, you may appreciate the following letter from Nancy Reagan to the staff at the mental facility treating Hinckley reports to have intercepted:
* * * To: John Hinckley From:
Mrs. Nancy Reagan
My family and I wanted to drop you a short note to tell you how pleased we are with the great strides you are making in your recovery. In our fine country's spirit of understanding and forgiveness, we want you to know there is a nonpartisan consensus of compassion and forgiveness throughout. The Reagan family and I want you to know that no grudge is borne against you for shooting President Reagan. We, above all, are aware of how the mental stress and pain could have driven you to such an act of desperation. We are confident that you will soon make a complete recovery and return to your family to join the world again as a healthy and productive young man.
Best wishes,
Nancy Reagan & Family
P.S.. While you have been incarcerated, Barack Obama has been banging Jodie Foster like a screen door in a tornado. You might want to look into that.
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
kilrod: screen door in a tornado? Bwahaaahaa!
August 17, 2009 - 21:12 ET by SickofLibsYer killin' me!
But seriously, anyone think there's any possibility of a Hinckley-Squeaky Fromme hookup?
Squeaky kinda had that Jodie Foster/waif thing going on, although that was a loooong time ago.
Lee Harvey Oswald hid
August 18, 2009 - 09:49 ET by QueenMumLee Harvey Oswald hid himself on the sixth floor of a building in order to carry out his assassination of JFK. If the Secret Service was as concerned as the MsM, wouldn't they have detained anyone carrying a weapon in close enough proximity to the President to be able to get off a good shot?
The other thing that's bothersome is the MsM making this out to be some sort of Obama campaign stop. The President was a guest speaker at a VFW convention. It was not HIS pulpit. Sure, there were those who took the opportunity to protest. But I don't recall the MsM being concerned about Pres. Bush's safety when he spoke at such events. Given the angst that the MsM drummed up toward Bush, shouldn't they have been concerned that someone might "infiltrate" and take things a bit too far?
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
Dave, What I like about the Second Amendment
August 17, 2009 - 20:18 ET by upcountrywaterIs that there will always be more law abiding folk than outlaws...
More honest folk in America, than crooks, STILL.
BRILLANT!!
my other dream:
If only the land owners vote, that would clear up a lot of the jetsum and flotsam.
Like over night....
Ok I guess some kook will sell one square foot patches of desert land...
Ok a chunk of land big enough to live on..
Reagan VS Liberalism
UCW,
August 17, 2009 - 22:48 ET by R D HelmRight you are.
The two biggest mistakes this country ever made was the passage of the hideous 16th Amendment, along with the Social Security Act.
Skewered we will be as a nation, should we fail to reverse both.
And soon.
-Dave
What??? A writer for a
August 17, 2009 - 19:00 ET by celatorWhat??? A writer for a national magazine claiming that US citizens who engage their congresspeople in actual face to face dialogue are participating in a "celebration of ignorance"???
How can this happen? Where does this come from?
Oh. It's Time Magazine and Joe Klein.
Never mind.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
"The cruelty inherent in
August 17, 2009 - 19:07 ET by QueenMum"The cruelty inherent in scaring the elderly to score political points
is beyond reprehensible.... [T]he sort of scurrilous campaign they are
conducting--the seditious fear-mongering that is the main staple of
their public diet--is a matter of profound disrespect and incivility
toward the individuals whose rights they claim to cherish.”
Who the "h" are they talking about? Klein, Sanchez, and Murphy evidently haven't paid much attention to the people showing up at these protests/meetings or they would notice that a good number of the protestors ARE the elderly. Condescending scoundrels. They use the term "elderly" as if everyone over the age of 65 is sick and feeble. Better pay attention. The baby boomers are mad as hell at this administration. We don't need Joe Klein's pity nor do we appreciate the fear-mongering from the left.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
Celebrating ignorance ... or confronting ignorance?
August 17, 2009 - 19:11 ET by metaphorsbwithuWell, it seems to me, with the Town Hall attendees knowing more about the health care bills being offered than both their representatives and the mainstream media combined, Confronting Ignorance and Misinformation might be a better description!
metaphorsbwithu
TIME's Joe Klein
August 17, 2009 - 19:15 ET by BondPlainBondHis name says it all: He's a very small-minded person.
Scaring the
August 17, 2009 - 19:20 ET by motherbeltScaring the elderly????
Holy Cow!! Liberals wrote the book on scaring the elderly:
Republicans don't want you to have health care.
Republicans don't care if you have to choose between food and medicine!
Republicans want to take away your Social Security!
Republicans want to do away with Medicare!
(But it's OK that President Obama says he wants to do away with Medicare supplement plans!)
This has been going on for years!!
Now, all of a sudden, they are concerned about "scaring the elderly."
Give me a break!!
Was there an arrest?
August 17, 2009 - 19:27 ET by evilcontractorDid anyone get arrested? Has anyone been charged with a crime? If not, please shut up!
www.btreasures.com
Rick Sanchez knows better
August 17, 2009 - 19:37 ET by d1carterRick Sanchez knows better than most that an automobile in the hands of a drunk man is a deadly weapon...and he is still driving.
Responsible Gun Owners
August 17, 2009 - 19:56 ET by DesertCop3031The responsible gun owners will not be involved in one single firearm incident, guaranteed! I'll bet Obama will call on his thugs from acorn to create an incident so 2nd Amendment loving Americans will be blamed.
STOP TREADING ON ME YOU COMMIES!
It is far better to be three hours early than one minute late.
DesertCop3031
August 17, 2009 - 20:04 ET by R D Helm"I'll bet Obama will call on his thugs from acorn to create an incident so 2nd Amendment loving Americans will be blamed."
I'm just surprised he hasn't done it already.
No joke.
-Dave
I am officially lodging a protest. I keep missing meetings.
August 17, 2009 - 19:59 ET by JWFLast I heard, there was one guy with one weapon across the street from one town hall meeting before it actually started.
Thank goodness no one showed up in a clown outfit or we would be talking about circuses breaking out.
Thank goodness no one showed up naked or we would be worrying about an national epidemic of nudity.
Thank goodness no one showed up with a bucket of tadpoles or we would be worrying about a national epidemic of frog warts.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Big Black Scarey Guns
August 17, 2009 - 20:14 ET by Marc BoydThe whole intent of the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution was to give the population a way to defend themselves against a government that would try to take away freedoms and act against the populace at large. Perhaps a few public showings of AR-15s, 12 GA Riot guns, and similar armaments will make an impression on our ELECTED officials. It appears that the time is coming nearer that more forcefull shows will be necessary. Sad.
I hope for Joe's sake, Zeke
August 17, 2009 - 20:26 ET by BKeyserI hope for Joe's sake, Zeke doesn't get his way.
Zeke Emanuel: Health services should not be guaranteed to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
Yeah, that's the ticket.....
August 17, 2009 - 20:36 ET by FlatlinerThere should be a First Amendment requirement that cnn and msnbc talking head dolts respect the Second Amendmen, even though they fear it and hate it.
Kind of like a Bill of Rights "Fairness Doctrine".
Blockheads
August 17, 2009 - 21:02 ET by obageegeeA learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one.
Benjamin Franklin
Joe Klein
August 17, 2009 - 21:10 ET by Gone_FishinWell Joe Klein is certainly an expert where ignorance is concerned and the celebration of ignorance remark certainly shows his ignorance.
SHAME ON KLEIN, TIME, AND THE REST OF THE LIBERAL MEDIA
August 17, 2009 - 21:12 ET by needleTime's Joe Klein: ObamaCare Protests a 'Celebration of Ignorance.' The shear gall and arrogance of Klein, of all people, to say that is beyond words!
All sorts of stories are coming out on the web about the systemic failures of Medicare AS IT IS(!), in spite of the Liberal Media’s long term attempt to suppress such stories.
No Joe, you are completely wrong. The ObamaCare Protests are a Celebration of Enlightenment in spite of your evil Fascist machinations. You do not give a damn about America’s Health System; you couldn’t if you wish ObamaCare on the rest of us. Do not lie to us that you will be content to entrust your health to the limited procedures determined by bureaucrats.
- Relying upon the State Run Media for your information is like relying upon an embezzler for your portfolio management.
I don't get why people would
August 17, 2009 - 21:18 ET by balboaI don't get why people would take guns to a protest where the president will be. Seems like carrying gasoline to a bonfire.
"The cruelty inherent in scaring the elderly"
August 17, 2009 - 21:42 ET by Jay in NHWas this Klein's take on the scare tactics Dems used to combat Bush's attempt to revitalize Social Security also?
My AR-15 is safer
August 17, 2009 - 21:44 ET by obageegeeIn my hands my AR-15 is safer than Rick Sanchez's car, just ask Jeffrey Smuzinick
It is a statement of fact
August 18, 2009 - 10:20 ET by NL207It is a statement of fact that drunks kill more people with automobiles every year than murderers kill with guns.
What Did They Do Wrong?
August 17, 2009 - 21:49 ET by rammingspeedThey brought the guns as a reminder of the threat by liberals against the 2nd Amendment, as well as the threats against our health care. What if everyone who attended openly carried guns, as they have the constitutional right to do? People following the letter of the law are not the problem.
How are guns brought to a
August 17, 2009 - 22:31 ET by balboaHow are guns brought to a healthcare rally relevant? Is there a provision in the healthcare bill that addresses the 2nd amendment?
bal
August 17, 2009 - 22:40 ET by MrShyHow are guns NOT brought to a healthcare rally relevant?
How is any of this relevant? They can legally carry a gun and take it wherever they please. If they have a driver's license, legally they can take a car to these rally events, too. Did you know that? Yes, I know, that TOO is irrelevant. Sorry I asked.
:)
A gun is not the same as a
August 17, 2009 - 22:42 ET by balboaA gun is not the same as a car. You don't just wake up and decide you're going to a rally, grab your keys, wallet, and gun.
The guns were taken for a reason, but I can't figure out what that is.
bal
August 17, 2009 - 22:54 ET by MrShyYou don't just wake up and decide you're going to a rally, grab your keys, wallet, and gun.
Um, you don't? You know how they live?
The guns were taken for a reason, but I can't figure out what that is.
Here's the reason: they have the law behind them that allows them to take a gun.
Not buying that as the only
August 17, 2009 - 22:55 ET by balboaNot buying that as the only reason. Carrying a gun, in the open, at a political event, is meant to send some kind of message, IMO.
bal
August 17, 2009 - 23:05 ET by MrShyI believe with a lot of them, it's not about sending messages but it's purely their life and their lifestyle. But again, at political events -- and certainly where there's the President -- then that's another matter, sure.
And I guess, my scenario is that they come with firearms in their trunk or something, as they always have one probably, but no, not over their shoulder right into the crowd or something.
Hey, Bal -
August 18, 2009 - 10:15 ET by Meredith1966I agree with you, it is kind of foolish to openly brandish a weapon at an event where the President of the United States is in attendance, regardless of whether that president is one you agree with or not. But, as to what message they were attempting to convey, I think the guns were there as props, designed to remind the President (and Congress, for that matter) that we, the people, retain the right under the Declaration of Independence to throw off the yoke of an oppressive government and change that government to one that will secure our God-given rights. This health care issue, and others that the Obama Administration have and will continue to pursue, is seen as the long arm of government threatening those rights--rights, I might add, that aren't government's to give or take. It is a question of liberty, and those of us on the right feel our liberty threatened by Obama, so that's what I think those folks are doing with the guns at the rallies.
Have a good 'un, Bal.
"The words of a President have an enormous weight and ought not to be used indiscriminately." - Calvin Coolidge
~"A gun is not the same as a car."
August 18, 2009 - 08:08 ET by choselife3xYou're right, bal. Cars kill a LOT more people than guns do.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
I can think of at least two
August 18, 2009 - 10:27 ET by NL207I can think of at least two reasons the guns might have been taken:
1. ACORN activist or some of their New Black Panther Party friends show up armed with Billy clubs as they did at polling places in Philadelphia in November 2008.
2. SEIU redshirt thugs show up and beat someone at this town hall like they did recently in Missouri.
sorry shy
August 17, 2009 - 22:52 ET by candanceThis might get me in trouble with the majority on NB, but I agree with bal. No sense in bringing guns to a speech about healthcare, especially with the president being so close. It had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and everything to do with looking tough.
Cx2
August 17, 2009 - 22:56 ET by MrShyI just scrolled up and noticed the president part. :p Okay, an asterisk then for all off this. But still. People I'm sure out in the yonder live this way. They hunt, they live in desolate/remote areas and ALWAYS carry a firearm for protection, etc.. And they're good, law abiding citizens, I'm sure.
another asterick
August 17, 2009 - 23:04 ET by candanceMost gun owners will carry a pistol or other small device, and only pull out rifles for hunting, target practice etc. The ones that showed up at the rally were pretty intimidating.
Can, bal, & Free
August 17, 2009 - 23:06 ET by MrShyI guess we're talking the redist of necks here. :p
You're sounding like a lib,
August 18, 2009 - 10:04 ET by QueenMumYou're sounding like a lib, candance. Intimidating? Any more intimidating than the ACORN and SEIU thugs who are showing up at protests, townhalls, and TEA parties trying to antagonize people into reacting violently? I heard some pretty interesting stories from some folks in Phildelphia on "Quinn and Rose" this morning about ACORN tactics in particular. Pushing people around both physically and verbally in order to provoke a reaction and create a photo-op.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
You'rer starting to sound
August 18, 2009 - 20:49 ET by Free StinkerYou'rer starting to sound like someone who needs less beverage, and more solid food at their pre-dinner meals.
Veggies. Grains/Carbs. Etc.
As I said further below
August 17, 2009 - 22:57 ET by Free StinkerAs I said further below,
the only guns anywhere near The President should be the ones that belong to The Secret Service.
'nuff said.
thank you, Free
August 17, 2009 - 23:06 ET by candanceIt's heartening to see I'm not alone.
Well then Free Stinker, it
August 18, 2009 - 10:07 ET by QueenMumWell then Free Stinker, it looks like the Secret Service was not doing there job then? It begs the question, how close to the President actually were the gun-toting crazy right wing extremists?
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
QM
August 18, 2009 - 20:47 ET by Free StinkerWell then Free Stinker, it looks like the Secret Service was not doing there job then?
I agree, they weren't.
Speaking of which: Newsmax.com - Secret Service Is Putting the President at Risk
balboa: The story in
August 18, 2009 - 10:26 ET by QueenMumbalboa: The story in question took place at a VFW convention, not a healthcare rally. The protestors were protesting the President's liberal agenda. If you research Obama's ties to Chicago, you'll find that he was on board with Jesse Jackson to shut down gun shops and restrict gun ownership. The MsM is painting it as being solely about health care. Health care reform is just the tipping point. Despite the perception of some that Obama is some sort of blank slate when it comes to politics, his slate is actually quite comprehensive in its content.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
QM, the one I saw was a
August 18, 2009 - 10:54 ET by balboaQM, the one I saw was a healthcare townhall. Perhaps there were multiple instances.
~Yes
August 18, 2009 - 10:58 ET by choselife3xThere was a man openly carrying a sidearm some distance from Obama's first town hall on health care. It was several hours before the event began, I don't know how long he stayed. He didn't break any laws, and there were no instances of violence like at the other town halls, where no one was 'packing heat'.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
"Earlier in the hour,
August 18, 2009 - 11:18 ET by QueenMum"Earlier in the hour, Sanchez asked White House correspondent Ed Henry
about the young black gentleman who appeared at a protest with an AR-15
outside the VFW convention in Phoenix where President Obama was giving
a speech. He characterized the weapons as an “assault rifle.” He used
the same label in his first question to Patricia Murphy of
PoliticsDaily.com, his other guest during the segment with Klein: “What
do you think of these people showing up at the Obama events with these
weapons?...I mean, this guy is- that’s a heck of a piece there, man.
That’s an AR-15. That’s an assault rifle.”
Link to full article
This is what I was referrring to, balboa. Note the use of the example of the "big scary weapon" by Sanchez as an example. As if this is what's happening at every townhall or protest. It's nothing but the usual lib scare mongering designed to paint legal gun owners as whackos
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
A-ha. Didn't realize there
August 18, 2009 - 13:18 ET by balboaA-ha. Didn't realize there were two separate times.
→ Guns to a protest
August 17, 2009 - 21:53 ET by Cool ArrowI liken someone toting a gun to a protest with someone who writes a column suggesting Sarah Palin hovers over Obama in a helicopter with a rifle.
No place for either.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Very true. "Hey, you know
August 17, 2009 - 22:35 ET by balboaVery true.
"Hey, you know what I'm gonna do? Take my gun to that protest. That'll send...someone....a message."
Health Care and Guns and Free Speech - Oh My!
August 17, 2009 - 21:45 ET by rammingspeedKlein and the other idiots couldn't be funnier. The facts about single payer health care have been layed out, people get it, and that part of the fight is over. Obama and his clowns may still push something through, but they'll pay for it at the ballot box, and their Republican replacements will change the laws back, anyway.
What's really sickening is that Klein and Sanchez and Murphy are lock-stepped with the Obama care plan. The flaws in HR3200 are there in black and white, how can they just ignore them?
And, yes, it's hysterically funny that liberals analyze weaponry and believe that citizens shouldn't be able to open-carry in an open-carry venue. Those people protesting by openly carrying guns were reminding us of the threat to the 2nd Amendment from these same liberal pukes.
It's Not A Celebration Of Ignorance, It's Just Plain Ignorance..
August 17, 2009 - 21:58 ET by The7SticksYeah, I hate having to use the word ignorant and sound like a crybaby. Remember the South Park episode where Michael Jackson keeps claiming "Oh no, that's ignorant" so many times you just wanted to punch him in the face? (May he rest in heavenly peace, thank you very much.) In some cases, the truth requires use of the word ignorant, and the truth is that these people are ignorant and know nothing about what the healthcare bill says. Just go to Phil Hendrie's Twitter account (http://twitter.com/realphilhendrie) and you'll find a pdf copy of the complete healthcare bill word for word. And don't say that it's too long because that's crybaby talk. If you can read a Harry Potter novel in two-to-three days, then you can sure as hell read a 1,000 page healthcare bill. Just imagine it as the eight Harry Potter novel, like say Harry Potter and the Horcrux of Healthcare, and it shall be a snap.
These protesters are not getting anything done by at least backing up what they say with certain previsions of the healthcare bill, previsions on which they disagree and have a problem with. I had a more useful experience going to the Depeche Mode concert at the Hollywood Bowl last night than I probably would have at one of these protests, that's for sure.
a few quick points, 7sticks
August 17, 2009 - 23:16 ET by candance1) You're late on the draw with your PDF link. I downloaded the entire bill over a week ago. Conservies have been highlighting specific passages this whole time and Dems reply with blanket denials.
2) Harry Potter is a stupid series. Grow up and read some Thomas Cahill or Tim Weiner.
3) Depeche Mode is a stupid band.
"...celebration of ignorance..."
August 17, 2009 - 22:14 ET by PrairieSky"We’ve seen- you know, the celebration of ignorance and misinformation in this health care battle...But there are an awful lot of angry people out there, and most of them, I got to say, are misinformed.”
Why are the people attending these townhalls "ignorant" and "misinformed", Mr. Klein? Because they have the temerity to disagree with Obama, you and the rest of your libnut comrades?? Typical unhinged libs...If you find fault with or disagree with their views/opinions, you're ignorant, uneducated, intolerant, misguided, hate-filled, misinformed and/or uninformed.
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
Sky... Hey... with them,
August 17, 2009 - 22:21 ET by bigtimerSky...
Hey... with them, Alinksy Rules...agenda matters...first & utmost.
Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh
bt...Absolutely...
August 17, 2009 - 22:26 ET by PrairieSkyFirst and utmost is right. They are all so blinded by their bs socialist ideologies, they can't see the forest for the trees...
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
Someone with a legally carried weapon
August 17, 2009 - 22:34 ET by merlin61I have seen no evidence of anyone being threatened by
this gun, so what's the problem?
If a democrat strapped a gun
August 17, 2009 - 22:38 ET by balboaIf a democrat strapped a gun to his/her leg and went to a Bush rally for social security, you'd lose your mind.
I just don't see the point.
Bal
August 17, 2009 - 22:42 ET by Free StinkerYou're correct.
The only guns near the President should be the ones belonging to The Secret Service.
Regardless of how much we do or do not like the current President.
Guns an Dentist
August 17, 2009 - 22:54 ET by kilrodI strapped a gun to my leg once and went to see the dentist. When he got me all laid back in the chair and started to go to work on me i poked the gun into his crotch and said, "Ok Doc, if you won't hurt me i won't hurt you".!!~~!!
(GRINS) kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
There is/wasn't one...the
August 17, 2009 - 22:40 ET by bigtimerThere is/wasn't one...the leftist msm makes sure to try to create one though...after-all...
Guns Kill...People Don't.
Spin/Agenda.
Not going to work though...in fact the mood of this country now, and the awakening of the sleeping giant....
...Bad moveO/Soros Team.
Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh
Be nice to these
August 18, 2009 - 05:11 ET by RR GOPBe nice to these people-they are representative of our new masters.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Right to sanity?
August 18, 2009 - 06:19 ET by KC BeachNow Joe claims we have a right to sanity? Maybe the right to sanity is hiding in the Constitution next to the right to privacy. I re-read my copy of the Constitution and can't find either.
The accusations the left
August 18, 2009 - 07:10 ET by NonArabOmarThe accusations the left are throwing aren't sticking. Public isn't in his favor.
Obama's base has given him a lukewarm response to his socialized medicine plan. Obama is out of touch with everyone.
1) Economy is bad. People are worrying about their jobs. They aren't really worrying about a potential medical catastrophe they may personally face when they are just trying to get by. General public has other things on their minds. Government run healthcare doesn't help them keep their house, put food on the table, pay their car, or makes it easier to find a jon at this exact time.
2) Democrat power base can afford private healthcare or already receives it. The people who fund the democratic party probably don't need the public option. Union folk have benefits. Billionaires like Soros can afford the best care in the world. The wealthy celebrities and Hollywod producers pay for their plastic surgery out of their own pocket.
3) seniors and the disabled already have medicaire
4) many of the poorest of the poor already have Medicaid
Who really "needs" this plan? Who is this plan for? Nothing in it for people Obama already "owns."
Reasonable comment from a
August 18, 2009 - 07:58 ET by billbReasonable comment from a Confirmed Liar !
How do you lose a Right?
August 18, 2009 - 08:52 ET by JRJ08It's easy. All you have to do is abuse it.
The idea that some people think it's acceptable for private citizens to bring weapons to a presidential event is sheer idiocy. We can quibble here over the technical meaning of the phrase "assault rifle", but the fact is that an AR-15 can easily be modified into an automatic fire weapon, i.e. an assault weapon. In this day and age, the technicality is a farce. Seers can be filed down or replaced. But this is just a diversion from the real issue.
In a country where no less than four presidents have been assassinated, one would think that responsible citizens would have some intelligent sensibilities about the issue that would cause them to reconsider bringing any kind of weapon at all to a public meeting with the president, especially when that meeting concerns health care reform.
Bringing these weapons to this event was just plain stupid. If you're a genuine gun enthusiast or hunter, you should be furious with these morons for making people who share your interest look like lunatics. There is already enough public sentiment against gun ownership in this country. As a veteran and a person who wants to preserve the right own rifles and pistol designed for hunting and/or target shooting or simple collecting, I think the irresponsible behavior of these people endangers the right to own those things.
In my view, there is no rationale that can justify a private citizen owning, and especially brandishing, an assault weapon-- or any weapon which can easily be modified into an automatic-fire weapon. These weapons were designed and manufactured for the single purpose of killing human beings on a mass scale, so the hunting and target shooting arguments are disingenuous to say the least. Those who feel the need to possess them are operating on too much testosterone and not enough common sense.
The attitude toward President Obama on this website is less than subtle. That vitriole and hatred has bent some of your thinking to the degree that you actually think the behavior of these people was not only appropriate, but that it should be defended. This unreasonableness, of course, makes all of your other opinions appear even less credible and driven by something other than political differences.
If you want to have a right taken away from you, just abuse that right and make it look like it is a potentially dangerous activity.
~A "right" cannot be taken
August 18, 2009 - 08:59 ET by choselife3xWithout flagrantly violating the Constitution of the United States, which Obama, all members of Congress, and the military are sworn to uphold and defend. Not that violating a sworn oath has ever stopped a liberal.
If a law wasn't broken, there is no point in even talking about this. Going into the potential 'motive' of an (in this case perfectly legal) action is akin to the twisted thinking behind the concept of 'hate crime'.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Ever heard of "amendments"
August 18, 2009 - 09:34 ET by JRJ08Ever heard of "amendments" to the Constitution? I suppose those were all "flagrant violations of the Constitution", too.
~I don't say this often..
August 18, 2009 - 10:03 ET by choselife3xSo get ready to bask in the glow..
That is without a doubt one of the most idiotically ignorant things I've ever seen anyone pull out of their nether regions. You are an ignorant moron. Scratch that, you're an EMBARRASSMENT to ignorant morons.
The RIGHT guaranteed by the CONSTITUTION is itself an AMENDMENT. To the CONSTITUTION. It is PART OF the CONSTITUTION. The ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS is COMPRISED OF AMENDMENTS. Which are ALL PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. IDIOT.
The only legal way of taking it away would be to repeal that amendment to the Constitution. Which will happen when Hell freezes over. Maybe. But probably not. Don't hold your breath. No, go ahead. Hold it.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
My eyebrows.
August 18, 2009 - 10:38 ET by JWFThat hurt and I was not even in the line of fire. I was just too close and caught some of the muzzle flash.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
~Sorry darling
August 18, 2009 - 10:49 ET by choselife3xStay back, I'm loaded for bear. Too bad all I've found so far today is this. Happy hunting!
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
The people who scream
August 18, 2009 - 20:15 ET by JRJ08The people who scream "idiot" the loudest are usually the biggest idiots of all (meaning you). Did you ever hear of the 18th amendment? Look it up in your 7th grade history textbook the next time you ditch class and you'll see that it no longer is the law of the land. Amendments can and have been repealed. But the point here is that the 2nd Amendment does not have to be repealed to be modified, you sad excuse for a moosehead. All that is required is a Supreme Court ruling and reinterpretation of the law. And very little has to occur to make something like that happen in the current political climate, you fish-headed goat-lover. This could happen quite easily because the 2nd Amendment was clearly written at a time when civilian members of state militias were called on to provide their own weapons when they trained or went to war. Therefore, it made sense that the Constitution would protect the right to bear arms. It was the "universal army" concept. This original purpose of the amendment has been twisted and misinterpreted by empty-skulled dorks like you for so long that we now have kids being murdered in schoolyards by other kids with assault rifles. Your buddies who took those weapons to a presidential event yesterday are the kind of people who could ultimately be responsible for the loss of the right to "bear" the kinds of weapons which can be easily modified to be automatic-fire capable. Know anything about seers, junior? Of course, I know this is a lot to digest for an intellectually disadvantaged adolescent, but keep eating your grits and stay away from your little sister, and maybe it'll sink in one day.
~Hahahahahahaha---Come back JRJ! Are you scared?
August 18, 2009 - 20:30 ET by choselife3xI love it when a liberal flips his lid.
I hardly know where to start with that steaming pile....but before I take you apart again I just have to know....
stay away from your little sister
Are you so dense and illiterate that you think you're talking to a man?
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
You mean, you think you're a
August 18, 2009 - 20:54 ET by JRJ08You mean, you think you're a woman?
~So the answer is yes
August 18, 2009 - 20:56 ET by choselife3xYou are that dense. How humiliating for you.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
It's odd how these Liberals
August 18, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Free StinkerIt's odd how these Liberals all humiliate themselves. Frequently.
By the way, I never actually
August 18, 2009 - 20:58 ET by JRJ08By the way, I never actually ever called you a "man". Must've hit a nerve with the little sister remark.
~BTW, it's spelled "sear"
August 18, 2009 - 21:15 ET by choselife3xYou might want to look this stuff up before you run off at the mouth about it.
I see you can't admit you didn't realize you were getting your @ss kicked by a girl.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
scorecard
August 18, 2009 - 21:20 ET by Free StinkerChose: 3
JR jr: 0
The term is "seer",
August 18, 2009 - 22:32 ET by JRJ08The term is "seer", sweetheart. This is according to the Browning MG (Machine Gun) website. So strident and so sure, but so ignorant. That's OK. You're just a girl. I think. Don't worry. I wouldn't kick your ass with someone else's foot.
eh?
August 18, 2009 - 23:08 ET by katainkentI went to the Browing MG website ... I have no idea where you got your information. The manufacturing catalog says differently - its "sear" . Also - attempting to file down is said pin will likely result in the gun blowing up in your face - not to mention its incredibly illegal.
I am having an odd sense of deja vu.
___________________________________________
"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" - HR 3200 (Health Care Bill) Pg. 203. Ln 14 & 15
~OMO...
August 19, 2009 - 07:24 ET by choselife3xThis poor guy doubled down on stupid..I'm sorry I wasn't here to see it happen live.
And dude, you'd have to get 'someone else's foot' out of your mouth before you could do anything with it. Normal people are content to put their own foot there, but you're our little overachiever, aren'tcha?
Now come back and lecture us more about the Constitution after you learn how to spell.
Oh, and "You're just a girl." I thought conservatives were supposed to be the misogynists? Hahahahahahahahahahaha.....
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Lookls lie chose pushed a troll right over the edge.
August 18, 2009 - 20:30 ET by JWFRamble much there junior. Choses already schooled you on the Constitution. Yet, what do we have here? Idiot came bebopping along and whacked you with the dummy stick.
The Supreme Court does not reinterpretate the Constitution, it interprets the Constitution. That is, it matches new and existing laws and determines if they are valid under the Constitution.
It is ultralefty radicals such as yourself that want reinterpretation, that is you want an endrun around the law making rules because you can't find the numbers willing to join your cause.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
~He ran away
August 18, 2009 - 20:32 ET by choselife3xHold yer fire till you ken see the whites of his eyes. Then watch his head explode.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Looks like you've got some
August 18, 2009 - 20:34 ET by Free StinkerLooks like you've got some Troll on the bottom of your shoes there Chose. ;-)
Good work!
~Oh excuse me
August 18, 2009 - 20:36 ET by choselife3xHope I didn't stain your rug.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
It's okay. I love the
August 18, 2009 - 20:39 ET by Free StinkerIt's okay. I love the smell of mashed Troll in the evening. ;-)
"reinterpretate"? Is that a
August 18, 2009 - 21:11 ET by JRJ08"reinterpretate"? Is that a word in your village? I've never heard it used in the city.
I'm no "ultralefty radical". I just look that way here because you guys are south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Not surprisingly, you're wrong about the role of the Supreme Court. It doesn't "match new and existing laws", or whatever that means. It agrees to hear specific cases and rules according the way it interprets the relevant law. In the matter of any 2nd Amendment case, it could easily conclude that private citizens do NOT have the right bear certain kinds of weapons. But even that does not have to happen for the banning of certain weapons.
Sincerely,
A veteran of 12 Michelle Malkin blogs.
Dumber than the dumbest rock in a box of rocks & twice as dense
August 19, 2009 - 00:14 ET by JWFJRJ08: "reinterpretate"? Is that a word in your village? I've never heard it used in the city.
The guy that -
That guy caught The Vet in a typo. Well, then that clears it all up now. It completely reinterpretates all of his statements and lunacy and makes them all the opposite of what was posted on this page, now don't it?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF
August 19, 2009 - 00:32 ET by MrShySincerely,
a Veteran of kicking JR's rock-dumb a**.
"All that is required is a
August 18, 2009 - 21:05 ET by celator"All that is required is a Supreme Court ruling and reinterpretation of the law."
Actually, the repeal of the 18th Amendment was accomplished by the passage of the 21st Amendment.
------------------------------------------------------
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed. Ratified 12/5/1933. History
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
cel... Bulls-Eye. Great
August 18, 2009 - 21:08 ET by bigtimercel...
Bulls-Eye.
Great post...as always.
Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh
~And all God's people said, "AMEN"
August 18, 2009 - 21:11 ET by choselife3xDissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Yes. Of course, nothing in
August 18, 2009 - 22:23 ET by JRJ08Yes. Of course, nothing in my comment contradicted this. If you re-read my post, you will see that I said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't have to be repealed to be changed. Simple concept.
JR, the process to "change"
August 18, 2009 - 23:01 ET by celatorJR, the process to "change" even a single word, let alone the intent of an Amendment--because one thereby changes the US Constitution, so to speak, is as follows. The Supreme Court plays no role.
--------------------------------
Article V of the U.S. Constitution establishes the means for amending that document according to a two-step procedure: proposal of amendments, followed by ratification. Amendments may be proposed in two ways: by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a special convention summoned by Congress on the petition of two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
~NOW
August 18, 2009 - 21:10 ET by choselife3xFor the dissection of the troll...hold him down for me, Dave.
Did you ever hear of the 18th amendment? Look it up in your 7th grade
history textbook the next time you ditch class and you'll see that it
no longer is the law of the land. Amendments can and have been
repealed. But the point here is that the 2nd Amendment does not have to be repealed to be modified, you sad excuse for a moosehead. All that is required is a Supreme Court ruling and reinterpretation of the law.
Pure bullsh!t. The Supreme Court doesn't reinterpret the Constitution, IDIOT, it measures the cases that come before it AGAINST the Constitution. They determine the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the cases because the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Supreme Court UPHOLDS the Constitution, just like the other branches of government are supposed to. And as far as the 18th Amendment goes, look again junior, it wasn't ruled on by the Supreme Court and modified, it was repealed. By the 21st Amendment. IDIOT.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
There seems to be a major
August 18, 2009 - 22:25 ET by JRJ08There seems to be a major reading comprehension disability going on here. Getting rather tiresome, even though it has been entertaining. Maybe that's why most of you have misread the health care reform proposals. You just aren't very good at reading.
JR... "This could happen
August 18, 2009 - 23:16 ET by celatorJR...
"This could happen quite easily because the 2nd Amendment was clearly written at a time when civilian members of state militias were called on to provide their own weapons when they trained or went to war. Therefore, it made sense that the Constitution would protect the right to bear arms."
Actually, the first four Amendments were written principally to protect citizens from their new government. If you read some of the arguments and discussions of the founders and framers, this is abundantly clear.
That legal concept is in large part what made us so very different from other governments: we created a Constitution to protect us from our own government, should the need arise. Pretty remarkable stuff.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Nice shooting, R!
August 18, 2009 - 20:46 ET by R D HelmNice, tight grouping, too.
Love that.
:-)
-Dave
Riddle me this, JR. How
August 18, 2009 - 09:55 ET by QueenMumRiddle me this, JR. How many "gun toting" crazies were arrested or detained by the Secret Service at the Phoenix event? Would you consider that perhaps the MsM may have exagerrated the risk a bit? Or are you suggesting that the Secret Service has become lax in carrying out their responsibilities?
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
The incident in Phoenix was
August 18, 2009 - 20:17 ET by JRJ08The incident in Phoenix was orchestrated by some lunatic radio talkshow host, under the close supervision of the Phoenix police department. Brilliant self-promotion, idiotic idea.
08' So the same radio host sponsored elementary school
August 18, 2009 - 20:54 ET by upcountrywaterKids with ASSAULT RIFLES
link or slink dudelette
Reagan VS Liberalism
It is acceptable to bring a
August 18, 2009 - 12:12 ET by Dan The Man 2It is acceptable to bring a weapon to anywhere it is legal to do so. And you lose rights by not exercising them and fighting for them. If the Secret Service had thought this man was a threat then Im sure he would have been detained as was the man with the sign that said Death to Obama.
You are the type of people that gave Hitler and th Nazis their power in the 1930's.
Ah, JRJ08
August 18, 2009 - 20:52 ET by R D HelmJust exactly which part of "The right of the people to keep [AND BEAR] arms shall not be infinged" are you not getting here?
BTW-The 2nd Amendment wasn't written to protect hunters and people engaging in target practice with pellet rifles.
Had you not attended a government school run by Postal Service rejects, you would know that.
-Dave
Dave, you need to go back
August 18, 2009 - 20:55 ET by JRJ08Dave, you need to go back and re-read what I wrote. Or have the person who read it to you read it again.
Jr.,
August 18, 2009 - 22:01 ET by R D HelmDid you and your fellow freedom-hating, lefty Obama-supporting friends really think that those of us who truly love freedom and liberty were just going to crawl off into a corner and cower while you and your Marxist friends deprive us of our hard-won freedoms and liberties?
Is that what your government-trained Marxist teachers and instructors taught you?
Damn, are you and your fellow Obama-oral-servicing compatriots ever in for one hell of a surprise.
-A surprise that will be most rudely delivered, of that you can be sure.
-Dave
This is very sweet, but I
August 18, 2009 - 22:53 ET by JRJ08This is very sweet, but I doubt that your position on this or any other issue has anything at all to do with "loving freedom". You just don't come across as that altruistic to me. You makin' a threat here, Davey-boy, or a prediction? Hard to tell. The way you people try to set yourself up as flag-waving patriots is a little silly. And your inability to read a simple sentence is shocking. Go back over each of my posts today and find one sentence where I've suggested that any rights be taken away from anybody. Even from you. You won't find it there, dude, because it doesn't exist. You jokers are so anxious to get hot about things that you can't even read properly.
August 18, 2009 - 08:56 ET by jessieHExercising one's rights is terrifying to liberals. I guess they would rather kill babies with abortions.
You're kidding. Right?
August 18, 2009 - 09:36 ET by JRJ08So no conservative member of the Republican Party has ever had an abortion? Is that the best you can do? The next thing you'll be saying is that liberals are the only people who commit adultry. Swear to God, the quality of posts on this site has deterioriated significantly.
Come to think of it, they were never that good.
Deteriorating quality is all yours, fella
August 18, 2009 - 10:06 ET by BlondeLove the way you put words which were not said into the thoughts of other posters....that's just pathetic.
Every time you show up here it drops the collective IQ of the boards.
I hope he fails, too.
I'm not the one who made the
August 18, 2009 - 20:20 ET by JRJ08I'm not the one who made the "I guess they would rather be killing babies" remark. Perhaps you didn't make the connection between that remark and my reply. Doesn't surprise me one bit.
08' nodding off to coast to coast again, WTF seers!
August 18, 2009 - 22:19 ET by upcountrywaterremote viewer maybe... really a remote voyeur..
Killer kids with assault rifles on the playground.. geez dudelette.
Now which part do you need 'fixed" to make this fully auto?
A fifth grader would know..
JR = Go, read the constitution and bill of rights.
August 18, 2009 - 19:31 ET by BO STINKSThen, come back and have a real conversation. K, pumpkin?
"...it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." G. Washington
Oh. Okie-dokie, slim. If
August 18, 2009 - 20:22 ET by JRJ08Oh. Okie-dokie, slim. If yore a sayin' so.
A point being missed here
August 18, 2009 - 09:46 ET by cocodrieWhen you resident compromisers argue in favor of comitting legal acts such as abortion, homosexuality, and such say it's OK because it's legal you ridicule those of us that say these actions are immoral and harmful.
Why are you so upset by this dumb but LEGAL stunt?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Constitution? What Constitution??
August 18, 2009 - 09:57 ET by Meredith1966"There should be like a Second Amendment equivalent of the First Amendment- shouting fire in a crowded theater.”
Yes, Joe--but what if the theater is on fire?
"The words of a President have an enormous weight and ought not to be used indiscriminately." - Calvin Coolidge
Gun carrying, who?
August 18, 2009 - 10:34 ET by AgnosticThere are so many problems with this story I don't even know where to begin. How about with the first rules I learned when I started handling a gun?
A gun is not a toy! In this case a prop to create a message. I have fewer problems with this man carrying a gun than I do with the gun being used as a statement.
Be aware to not put yourself in position where an accident can happen. This man put himself in a risky position and did so willingly.
Along with rights come responsibility and this man abused his rights by failing to be responsible. Conservatives often complain that the problem with liberals is that they want their freedoms without responsibility and to allow this to pass is hypocritical to certain degree.
On another line of thinking is that we no nothing about this man. The media assumed his background and political leanings. We have no idea if this person even knows the difference between conservatives and liberals or what side he would fall on. After all, all those liberals who assassinated/attempted assassinations of political figures seem to have guns as well.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
question
August 18, 2009 - 10:44 ET by misterbillWhat would be the status of the health care bill if the grouchy old seniors had not protested????
All those "grouchy seniors"
August 18, 2009 - 11:02 ET by JRJ08All those "grouchy seniors" are the victims of a disinformation campaign. Let's be honest and add up the lies that have been perpetrated by the insurance industry and ultra-conservatives who want to see the administration fail, even if it means hurting their own family. Most of those lies have targeted our senior citizens and their deepest fears.
1. Death Panels: This is so absurd, it barely even warrants a response. The 'end of life' counseling item was added to the House bill by a Republican (Grassley) and it is something which has already existed in previous health care legislation. It simply means that any meetings between a family and a doctor concerning important decisions, such as hospice care, would be covered. The only "death panels" we have now are the ones owned and operated by the private, for-profit insurance companies, which decide who will be covered and for what. Use or imply the idea of euthanasia and seniors will definitely get grouchy.
2. You don't get eye care till you go blind: A curious claim by opponents of health care reform, since neither bill being considered mentions blindness, macular degeneration, or sight. Since the vast majority of people who suffer from macular degeneration are elderly white women, this claim has been an effective scare tactic.
3. Socialized medicine: This is a rather stupid claim, given that the government wouldn't be taking over anything and that no plan currently being considered would put any doctors, nurses, technicians or therapists on the government payroll. Genuine socialized medicine precludes any private option, and that is obviously not the case with either of the reform bills. What we have right now is a form of corporate socialism, where a handful of insurance company executives make decisions about who will be denied coverage and how high premiums will go. Most senior citizens are staunch patriots and the word "socialism" pushes their buttons. It also implies that they will have their choices taken away, with is totally false.
4. "I don't want the government messin' with my Medicare!" An amazing complaint, considering that Medicare is administered by the federal government, and that most seniors are extremely happy with their coverage. Medicare is in financial trouble, not because of government mismanagement, but because of sky-rocketing medical costs. Unless those costs are brought under control, Medicare will go into the red, taxes will go up and the deficit will continue to explode. If you're a genuine conservative, health care reform should be at the top of your "Things to Do" list.
5. Rationing of medical care for the elderly: There is no such provision in either of the bills currently being considered. In fact, Medicare would remain untouched. Of course, reducing health care costs across the board would ensure that Medicare will avoid bankruptcy. This is yet another scare tactic that has zero basis in fact.
6. The public option will drive people away from private insurers, and take away our choices. Only if private insurers refuse to cut their operating costs and lower premiums. If they can't compete with the public option, then they should go out of business. The whole notion that a profit motive should dictate the quality of our health care is absurd anyway. There are plenty of other industries where making money is good for business and good for the country. But we're talking about people's lives here and the fact that millions of hard-working Americans are going bankrupt every year because they can't afford decent medical coverage or any coverage at all because of a previous condition.
Most of the outspoken critics of health care reform are liars who are driven by anger that we have a black man sitting in the White House, or just misinformed people who know nothing about the actual bills. As many commentators are saying now, this debate is no longer about health care reform. It's about President Obama. That's why we have morons carrying assault weapons to presidential events.
Read the Bill
August 18, 2009 - 11:08 ET by BlondeWe don't need any Obamabots "interpreting" for us....many of us have read the bill's provisions and actually know what's there, including ALL the grouchy seniors, whom you've deemed to be misinformed.
Could you possibly be any more condescending? If I wanted to listen to Obama's BS, I'd turn on the television.
Get lost...your talking points are boring me. And don't tell me to refute your stupid talking points either. I have a Forum topic on the subject that has been going for FIVE MONTHS here, with an honest discussion of the topic by some of the best and brightest contributors here.
I hope he fails, too.
Get lost? I'm so hurt. I
August 18, 2009 - 20:31 ET by JRJ08Get lost? I'm so hurt. I only sound condescending because most of you are so dimmed by your 19th century, goose-stepping ideology that you can barely comprehend real facts when they're right in front of you. The routine responses here are puerile sarcasms and I see no discussion of the facts at all. Maybe that's why it's so entertaining to read through your posts. Most of the time you sound like a bunch of out-of-work stand-up comedians. Based on your response here, there is no doubt in my mind that you have read NONE of the contents of the two bills currently being considered in Congress. If you have, you haven't understood it. Like everyone else here, you're just a walking talking-point. That must be some discussion you got going there. Best and brightest here? Wow. Is it BYOB?
scorecard
August 18, 2009 - 20:36 ET by Free StinkerBlonde: 1
JR jr.: 0
Oh, I remember BLONDE now.
August 18, 2009 - 20:51 ET by JRJ08Oh, I remember BLONDE now. At least she's consistent.
What was that old ID you
August 18, 2009 - 20:52 ET by Free StinkerWhat was that old ID you used to come here as?
"Father" Baracus I presume?
~Quick, someone search
August 18, 2009 - 11:08 ET by choselife3xLiberal sites to see where JustReleasedfromJailin08 copied those talking points from.
the fact that millions of hard-working Americans are going bankrupt
every year because they can't afford decent medical coverage or any
coverage at all because of a previous condition.
Either back that claim up with a link or admit you pulled it out of Axelrod's orifice.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
"Lying white racists driven by anger"
August 18, 2009 - 11:16 ET by SickofLibsReally?
0 for 6 is truly pathetic, Janine.
jrj08
August 18, 2009 - 11:39 ET by Agnostic1. Death Panels: The 'end of life' counseling item will be the same as we have now with private, for-profit insurance companies except they will mandatory and run by state employees with the same lack of flexibility and responsiveness as any other government program. The idea of euthanasia being established will never be put in writing but the wording of the bill allows for this potential. Coupled with the rhetoric coming from the oval office itself then it easy to see why people make the connection. Does the bill say their will be death panels and euthanasia – NO but it doesn’t restrict the use of this bill from bringing those ideas to fruition and creates the opportunity for Dr. Emmanuel to have some of those cost cutting ideas that he seems so fond of implementing.
2. You don't get eye care till you go blind: I think this is an honest oversight that would be met by the Health Care Czar or equivalent at some point. If anything it is proof that this bill is not ready and is written in open ended language that can allow for the government to usurp power from the medical community, patients and their families. It is not so much what the bill allows as what the bill could possibly allow because it is not written to limit government power but to expand government control.
3. Socialized medicine: Sorry but almost everything you said here is wrong with the exception of not putting the medical personnel on the government payroll. No, the bill does not preclude a private option except in that allows no way an affordable private option can be maintained for more than 5-10 years. Profit motive can compete against the public sector when the government set the rules, prints the money and generally runs a majority of healthcare system. Healthcare becomes run by the government by the very rules of Capitalism and therefore we do end up with socialized medicine.
4. "I don't want the government messin' with my Medicare!" Yes, this is a silly complaint. However, we this bill is far from reforming medical care it is a complete destruction of the current system to place a significant portion of the GNP into the hands of the politicians. A portion I might add that will be growing as baby boomers continue to cost greater amounts to the healthcare industry and government inefficiencies create higher costs. The precedents for these things occurring are too numerous to bother repeating.
5. Rationing of medical care for the elderly: First, can you show me one major federal program that has ever reduced cost across the board or in any other way? This isn’t a partisan issue but the federal government is the last place to go when you want cost cutting and efficient ideas. On the issue of rationing this is once again one of those things the bill doesn’t explicitly say, ‘there will be rationing of healthcare’, but it does use language that makes it probable. That being said, rationing is a normal state of any product of limited supply. But it is my opinion that it is not the government’s responsibility to decide how that rationing should take place. When the government gets involved in any enterprise then the amount rationing increases due to the natural inefficiencies and corruption that occurs in all federal programs.
6. The public option will drive people away from private insurers, and take away our choices. This is just a fact of economics and really to argue that private industry should be able to compete against the government when the government sets the rules, standards and controls the cost is just disingenuous. If healthcare follows the same track as every other federal program and there is no reason it shouldn’t then we will see a decline in money available, service and especially in specialized skills. You can be as compassionate as you want about those that need healthcare but it doesn’t change the truth about economics and it doesn’t change what happens when governments take over.
Most of the outspoken critics of health care reform are not liars and could not care less that there is a black man sitting in the White House but some are people who know the actual bill allows the government too much control over their lives even though the fear may be of things not actually in the bill but made possible by the bill. The commentators saying, this debate is no longer about health care reform it's about President Obama are stupid considering the number of baby boomers that voted for Obama and the fact that hardly anyone at the townhalls are evening mentioning Obama when they ask their questions about the health care bill.
That's why we have morons carrying assault weapons to presidential events – while even half the facts aren’t in on what was going on with this guy I don’t think we need to paint one person as personifying the concerns of half the nation. Especially when many conservatives don’t agree with what he did though he had a right it wasn’t necessarily the responsible thing to do.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
You need to spend some
August 18, 2009 - 23:12 ET by JRJ08You need to spend some serious time over on PolitiFact.com and FactCheck.org because somebody's been giving you some bad information. Medicare and Medicaid will actually be expanded under both bills to accommodate the Boomers. The "public option", which most people won't even qualify for, hasn't been finalized, so trashing it now is a bit premature unless you think the insurance companies are just peachy keen. The bottom line is that without a public option, there may as well be no reform at all because there will be zero incentive for insurance companies to reduce costs. The notion that a health care system based on a profit motivate is a good thing is simply not borne out by the current state of affairs. As far as the public option driving out private insurance providers, that might or might not happen, depending on how the exchange is designed. Of course, the insurance companies have been doing a stellar job of raising rates, denying coverage and making huge profits. You must be kidding when you say the people screaming at the town halls that they want their country back aren't referring to Obama. If not Obama, from whom do they want their country back? Morons carry weapons to presidential events because they're morons. That is the sole requirement. The people who are intentionally spreading lies about the nature of the health care reform bills absolutely are liars. The anger and vileness of those who are diametrically opposed to the reform bills suggests a motive that goes beyond a disagreement over their content.
makes you a socialist
August 19, 2009 - 04:06 ET by AgnosticPartisan fact check organizations do not change the rules under which economics operate. You may be a socialist and that is your right in this nation but unfortunately all your great beliefs in a beneficial and caring big government have no basis in the reality of historical fact. I know you don't claim to be a socialist or even think that this bill is a socialist bill but that just shows the degree of disconnection you have to reality over this topic.
While I am sure there are some that just want to make a political spectacle (gee, that never happened before) the people in the town halls are actually upset at all of government and many don't care about the party let alone the specific president. In the last 20 years they have seen 5 generations of wealth wasted with interest and they are tired of it. It is unfortunate that Obama is president when things come to a head but he did force the issue by backing TARP, stimulus projects and the ultra inflated budget so I don't feel too sorry for him. The fact that you can't see past Obama and to a certain degree his race tells more about your inner racist but I'll stay away psych101 for now.
The famous, 'I don't agree with what they did so their morons argument.' When you’re done with your self indulgent tirade on your own self-importance perhaps you can acknowledge that several conservatives have said what this person did was wrong even though legal and nothing come of the situation. Then as you get down off the high horse upon which you are perched perhaps you can take a look at the protest movements for the past 50 years and see there was a lot of extremist actions by a lot of idiots and many were socialist like you.
You say that a motive is suggested but you have neither proof nor even a plausible theory other than the projection of your own anger and vileness. Sorry that doesn't wash as a counter argument since you have once again basically stated that the actions of those you don't agree with are moronic. I'm sure they felt the same about all those protesters over the last few decades that actually caused severe problems with real violence, destruction, trespassing and other minor infractions. So your socialistic ideals are shared by many and that makes them upset, come up with real facts that show socialistic platforms as being the better idea.
I know it is fashionable for socialist who argue the government should control the private sector (at least when there is a Democrat in office) to claim at the top of their lungs that they are not a Socialist but this is simply a definition. The US is a mixed economy and any program that puts more money, lives, power and/or control in the hands of the government means the scale tips to the Socialism side therefore the supporters of those plans are socialistic and to some degree socialist. In the previous administration this could be seen in Homeland Security, responses to various natural disasters, TARP and the pharmaceutical plan.
So please drop the charade, embrace your inner Mao and use real arguments that stand the test of time instead of relying on poorly written bill and biased fact-check organizations. One note about fact checking a bill that is not complete and constantly in flux - it takes all the credibility away from the fact checkers since they are not analyzing an actual bill but 'living document' that changes with the whim of public opinion and government discretion.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
JR, Pumpkin, now you need to add the Health Care
August 18, 2009 - 19:36 ET by BO STINKSReform Bill to your reading list. You will be a busy boy for a while, so we will wait. NOT!
"...it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." G. Washington
Liberal Lies
August 18, 2009 - 12:03 ET by slickwillie2001The nonsense that half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills is just liberal nonsense. It's been debunked here on NB many times by several of us posters. It's been debunked on blogs and on Fox News, but it lives on because it's such a pretty soundbite for the liberals. Anyone that continues to rely on such nonsense 'facts' is intellectually lazy or disingenuous.
Medical Bankruptcy: Myth vs Fact: http://content.healthaffairs.org
Health Problems and Bankruptcy: http://volokh.com
This is little different from the liberals other lies about US guns used in Mexican crimes, 10% of the population is gay, 47 million uninsured Americans, etc, etc.
Well, if it's been debunked
August 18, 2009 - 20:49 ET by JRJ08Well, if it's been debunked here it must be part of the great liberal conspiracy. Gotchya. Only thing is, the debate on this subject centers on the definition of what constitutes a "medical bankruptcy". Debunkers claim that large medical bills are routinely part of a greater debt problem and not the sole cause of the bankruptcy. Of course, without those excessive medical bills contributing to the financial condition of the individual, it is unlikely that there would have been any bankruptcy petition at all. If you're unable to pay your medical bills, it stands to reason that you're not paying other bills as well. The criticisms of the study also ignore the fact that many people go into bankruptcy after paying their medical bills, because they have no money left to pay off any other debt. Unless you factor things like that in, you're getting a fair picture of how prevalent medical bankruptcies are.
Wow. They teach about
August 18, 2009 - 20:51 ET by Free StinkerWow. They teach about bankruptcies in Junior High now?
Oh. Ya got me there, Stinko.
August 18, 2009 - 23:13 ET by JRJ08Oh. Ya got me there, Stinko. That one hurt bad.
~So
August 19, 2009 - 07:27 ET by choselife3xYou admitting you can't back it up? Lick your wounds and return to the fray, darling. I can't wait to read all about the "millions of bankruptcies every year" on the super-duper fantastic link I'm sure you'll provide.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today