That's a tweet reacting to a memo in the hacked DNC files that — as the NY Post puts it —
"appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed."
A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 — a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”...
The document, posted online by the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” outlines ways to hit back at the GOP presidential field, such as “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”
According to The Hill, the Post is doing the bidding of the RNC:
The Republican National Committee is promoting a report that accuses the Democratic Party of conspiring to nominate Hillary Clinton in the early days of the presidential primary. In an email, the RNC sent to reporters a story published by the New York Post about a document that purportedly shows the Democratic National Committee was strategizing to make Hillary Clinton president — and not a generic Democratic candidate — in the spring of 2015....
The RNC sent out the article in an email blast to reporters, highlighting a point in the report that the memo “appears to show the DNC working on behalf of Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.”...
The RNC push comes as Clinton and Sanders are in discussions after the end of the Democratic primary to unify the party.
I don't know if the DNC was promoting the report that the RNC is promoting the report that the DNC was promoting Hillary. So many layers, such loathsome, lazy media. I'm not sure who to hate the most. Oh, right: Donald Trump.
पोस्ट्स
२९४ टिप्पण्या:
294 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»"the Post is doing the bidding of the RNC:"
Telling the truth, which cannot be allowed to stand.
Of course the RNC worked to stop Trump. Bottom line is that if Sanders had the votes he would have won. And I say that as someone who isn't a HRC fan.
In other news that's not news...
According to Trump, the Washington Post is doing the bidding of the DNC.
Maybe I am LS fashioned, but I think that there is a difference between eithe the DNC working to nominate Herself or the RNC against The Donald, and the WaPo working in favor of the presumptive Dem nominee. Political parties should be neutral. If they aren't, they will ultimately lose legitimacy. I expect that Hillary will lose some Sanders voters as a result of this, and the RNC would lose a lot of votes if Trump doesn't get the nomination. Far, far more potentially irate Trmpsters than the small number of adamant NeverTrump people. But newspapers have been biased since our founding. They only pretend to be unbiased so that they can convert the other side. WaPo is the hometown paper for the federal bureaucracy. They tend to vote Dem because the Dems want bigger govt, which means more and richer govt bureaucrats.
The DNC was rigged, without fail, on behalf of Hillary. I feel bad for Bernie supporters that even if their God awful candidate won --- he'd have lost.
Some laudable concern on the part of the RNC. It cares a lot about the people who vote in the Democratic primary!
What do you expect from the elites in either party? You read Animal Farm, right? The elites are pigs.
"the Post is doing the bidding of the RNC" True. As opposed to the objective reporting done by the rest of the MSM. You do know, don't you, that because reality skews liberal, promoting liberals is a way of seeking truth.
So Harrogate is OK with it. Nice to know.
I'm not sure who to hate the most. Oh, right...
Why decide? They're ALL horrible.
That's the problem with America. Continuing to slice and dice bad choices into worse and worse choices.
Just boycott it all. Strengthen the third parties. Don't stop until it gets done.
And let us not forget:
Ann Althouse either was - or pretended to be - confused about which candidate MSM reports were meant to help.
Mock. Fucking. Worthy.
Still.
Althouse you are supposed to hate Trump on the merits. On the things Donald Trump -- alone -- has said and done.
The fact that Hillary Clinton is so weaselly and Democrats are so corrupt doesn't inure to Trump's benefit. He's not better, because they are so bad. You may think he's the lesser of evils. Okay. What I think is that amidst the terrible weakness of the Clinton candidacy, we are stuck with an ignoramus like Trump as our candidate to oppose her.
Note to Self:
harrogate just gave me permission to ignore harrogate's posts that have anything to do with conservatives.
I had already taken that course, but it is nice of harrogate to affirm my surmise.
@Chuck
I think the demand to hate Trump is being used as a distraction. He may deserve to be hated, but that isn't a reason to shut down attention to everything else.
Chuck:
What benefit do you take from the whinging posts, like above? I perceive no benefit. You read like a complainer. You read like a child who was denied his choice. You read as unmanly.
Are those negatives not enough to overwhelm any perceived benefit?
As for why the GOP ended up with Trump... it's their own horrible, out-of-touch stupidity.
It basically tried to give it to Jeb, and Jeb got all the money, which he squandered and misspent taking down Rubio, who might have grown into a good candidate. The potential star Scott Walker was never able to get to the money he would have needed to make a creditable run. And the whole time the GOP assured itself that Trump couldn't possibly survive. What crushing stupidity!
Hillary is fully deserving of hate for thousands of legit reasons.
Hillary Clinton must be defeated.
Carthage must be destroyed.
Which party should we hate more?
The thing about Trump is that he isn't either party, and there's some appeal to that. He found a way around the doubly rigged system, but maybe only because Jeb was weaker than Hillary and didn't manage to scare off all the competition or because it took Sanders a while to build up name recognition.
I don't know what the answer is now, but I do feel outraged, and Trump symbolizes outrage and Hillary embodies the absence of outrage. So signs would seem to point to Trump. Except that he's so over-the-top weird that people might step back from the cliff and not take the leap.
Oh, geeze, Birkel.
The better attack on me, concerning Trump, is that the benefit is ENTIRELY personal. I get to be the guy who said that I opposed Trump in the primary and said that he'd be a (1) loser in the fall and/or (2) he'd drag down the entire party in the fall and/or (3) if he became president, he'd be terrible, and not much of a conservative, and in 2020 the GOP would be looking at the risk of losing most of the historic gain from the 2010 redistricting election.
Objectively, and all other things being equal, I think it would be better for the country to suffer through four moribund years of a Trump presidency than a Clinton/third Obama term presidency.
So really my opposition to Trump was profoundly personal. I don't like him; personally. I think he's an idiot; personally.
It's more personal, than just about anything else.
in 2008 the Democratic Party elite worked very hard for Obama. A lot of the same things happened at caucuses, and the rules committee fashioned things along the way to help pull Obama over the finish line when neither Clinton or Obama had a majority going to the convention. I think her quick turn around to support Obama after her concession came with a promise they would do the same for her in 2012 or 2016 if she wanted to run again. She was just collecting on her quid pro quo.
See, Althouse; you speak as someone who is to a great extent disconnected from both parties.
I wouldn't dare deny you the right to vote in the general election; but I might deny you the right to vote in a Republican primary. If you don't have a strong party affiliation, I don't understand why you or others like you should be picking party nominees.
What we know is the more people see Hillary the more they dislike her. She needs to go dark until November. I simply don't see Crooked Hillary winning. I despise her, but I am trained to be dispassionate when analyzing. We'll see soon. Rice bowls.
One thing to consider about a Hillary Clinton presidency is that she will make decisions based upon if it will mean donations to the future Hillary Clinton presidential library (at Yale) and the Clinton Foundation.
Need to get tough on Saudi Arabia? No way! The Sauds are good for $20 million for the library.
One thing is clear so far. The Republican party needs to die at the national level. It is clearly infested with oligarch pets and parasites. The republican party is winning handily at the state and local levels and even the congressional seats but they find ways to stab every one of their members in the back at the national level if they show any sort of spine.
A Hillary presidency will not be allowed to pass no matter how much the Oligarchs want it.
You'd have to be a moron not to realize that the Hildebeest was the "Anointed One" from the get go so far as the DNC and Debbie DingDong Wasserman Schultz was concerned.
To which I say, "A big so what?" The RNC was kind of in the tank for Jeb! To which the voters said, "A big so what?"
This year, insofar as the voters are concerned, both the DNC and the RNC are about as useless as a vermiform appendix. I can't decide who I have the more contempt for--Debbie DingDong or Rinse and Don't Repeat Priebus? Who found and appointed these clowns?
Keep hope alive, maybe some sane person will come along and form the Outraged Party. Trump is just too weird to lead the outraged to the Promised Land.
Some folks are too dumb to realize Trump is part of the Oligarchy.... Achilles.
So not resisting the demand to hate the media? There is a lot not to like.
The real story here is that the 2008 primary was also rigged for Hillary yet she managed to lose that one while winning this one.
Can someone explain to me why the Democrat Party could reasonably have been expected to support a geriatric socialist who wasn't even a member of the party? Of course they were supporting Clinton. She is terrible on many levels, but as others noted, her unqualified support of Obama in 2008 meant she would get the party's support in return in 2016. It's not democratic, it's not even meant to be democratic. It is different power bases shuffling for position, just like every other political party on the planet.
No reason to blame the GOP for the emergence of a Trump's hidden strength. The Establishment guys do not normally rub elbows with middle class workers from middle class families except to lie to them about Conservative ideas at an election cycle.
But Trump has made talking straight to them a big part of his life for over 35 years, and those voters sense that Trump actually is the first Presidential candidate in their lifetimes that they can trust to be loyal to them. He is today's FDR.
Hillary is not going to win anything.
So Chuck admits that his personal feelings color his political decisions.
Should have just told us sooner, Chuck. We were actually arguing with you assuming that you were rational.
I'd hate to see what Army Generals you would approve of.
Some folks are too dumb to realize Trump is part of the Oligarchy.
...and Hillary isn't?
"I don't understand why you or others like you should be picking party nominees."
That's a good point, but it seems as though the GOP®™, as its appeal becomes more selective, is going to have a harder time coming up with candidates that a broad enough swath of the populace are willing to support. Throwing up a walled around the primary process lets the party hide that dismal reality from itself for the duration of the primaries. but doesn't help when November comes along.
Chuck said ..."If you don't have a strong party affiliation, I don't understand why you or others like you should be picking party nominees."
Because it's a fact that the eventual ruler will be one of the two parties nominees. To bar us from voting in a primary is disenfranchisement.
As for why the GOP ended up with Trump... it's their own horrible, out-of-touch stupidity
You missed the biggest reason..the Establishment hates and fears Cruz more than they do Trump.
Because it's a fact that the eventual ruler will be one of the two parties nominees. To bar us from voting in a primary is disenfranchisement.
So?
The parties could (and used to) select nominees with no input from the voters....they are private organizations, not government.
"The parties could (and used to) select nominees with no input from the voters....they are private organizations, not government."
And if they did (and I think they should) then I've got no gripe. But as long as I'm footing the bill for the election, and I am, I demand a vote.
Ann Althouse said...
I do feel outraged
Althouse feels outraged. She has tenure, a high paying low stress position, lives in a beautiful town, with a beautiful car and gardens, and she feels outraged. She has never shown any sympathy for the people whose economic lives have been upended by financialization and globalization. Yet, she is outraged. Apparently we are defining outrage down.
"Some folks are too dumb to realize Trump is part of the Oligarchy"
LOL. Hillary got her money (and she's loaded) by selling her public position.
AReasonableMan said...
Can someone explain to me why the Democrat Party could reasonably have been expected to support a geriatric socialist who wasn't even a member of the party? Of course they were supporting Clinton. She is terrible on many levels, but as others noted, her unqualified support of Obama in 2008 meant she would get the party's support in return in 2016. It's not democratic, it's not even meant to be democratic. It is different power bases shuffling for position, just like every other political party on the planet.
6/18/16, 11:26 AM"
Can someone explain to me why the Democrat Party could reasonably be expected to support a criminal and traitor? Generally speaking legitimate political parties don't have criminals and traitors as part of their power bases. Hillary Clinton isn't terrible at many levels, she is beyond the pale at first past the post.
This country can far more easily survive four years of Trump's buffoonery than Hillary's fascism and criminality. The Sanders supporters would be doing the country a great favor by voting third party. At least the Greens albeit even more left than the official Democrat Party aren't known criminals. If they were to help Clinton lose the resulting cleaning up of the Clintonite Democrat Party would be a great thing for the country.
All the machinations and wailing of the teeth about His Orangeness and yet the obvious isn't really discussed: we have a criminal and a traitor as the nominee for president from one of the two major political parties and that fact somehow doesn't seem to rise to the level of Trump's perceived negatives. Can someone explain why a criminal and traitor and would be fascist is preferable to a carnival barker?
Chuck:
You cannot claim to have been more against Trump than I (or many other posters here).
But some of us are not whinging, mincing little bitches. On that your claim rests supreme.
AReasonableMan said...
Ann Althouse said...
I do feel outraged
Althouse feels outraged. She has tenure, a high paying low stress position, lives in a beautiful town, with a beautiful car and gardens, and she feels outraged. She has never shown any sympathy for the people whose economic lives have been upended by financialization and globalization. Yet, she is outraged. Apparently we are defining outrage down.
Like when an Islamic terorist guns down 49 people in a gun free zone and you and your only outraged response is to call for less protection for potential victims.
ARM. you're a parody of reasonableness.
The better attack on me, concerning Trump, is that the benefit is ENTIRELY personal. I get to be the guy who said that I opposed Trump in the primary and said that he'd be a (1) loser in the fall and/or (2) he'd drag down the entire party in the fall and/or (3) if he became president, he'd be terrible, and not much of a conservative, and in 2020 the GOP would be looking at the risk of losing most of the historic gain from the 2010 redistricting election.
You're not unique. I'd say a good number here opposed Trump. I'm still a Cruz guy. Would I vote for Trump over Hillary? Probably, but the odds ebb and flow (it's really low now after his idiocy over gun control). But Trump isn't the big problem.
Hillary is the big problem.
You've become a bit of a one-note guy. We know what you'll say the moment we see your name.
cubanbob said...
Can someone explain to me why the Democrat Party could reasonably be expected to support a criminal and traitor
Just guessing here, but I suspect that the Democrats don't view Hillary through quite the same prism of hate that you apparently do. The extreme hyperbole doesn't really move the needle for the people you might want to convince, if that is your goal. Much like calling Trump a Nazi or a fascist on the other side of the aisle.
And if they did (and I think they should) then I've got no gripe. But as long as I'm footing the bill for the election, and I am, I demand a vote.
If the GOP says "Fuck it, we're dumping Trump and running Walker" I'd be quite happy with it. If they said "fuck it" and run Jeb, I wouldn't be. I'm not opposed to the party making the final call. It's their party name that is on the line.
I don't think more democracy is always best. The Senate is terrible now that state legislatures no longer name their own Senators instead of having voters do it.
Just guessing here, but I suspect that the Democrats don't view Hillary through quite the same prism of hate that you apparently do.
Given that a geriatric Socialist who didn't want to win ran tight with her and given the columns about their overwhelming sleaze written in 2000 (note: the Clintons have not gotten CLEANER since then), how can they profess ignorance?
Nazis didn't think Hitler was a bad guy either, for what it's worth. Communists were OK with Mao, Stalin, Ceaucescu, Castro, etc.
Rusty said...
you're a parody
Like a majority of the country, bubble boy?
damikesc said...
Nazis didn't think Hitler was a bad guy either, for what it's worth. Communists were OK with Mao, Stalin, Ceaucescu, Castro, etc.
Some people voted for Bush Jr., twice. There is a lot of herd mentality of both sides of the aisle.
>>Which party should we hate more?
Neither. You should hate self-appointed, out of touch, unaccountable, corrupt elites. Period. 'The government' generally, but it also includes all the assorted throne-sniffers (e.g., the media) that goes along with it. Democrat, Republican, Tory, Whig, Labor, Patricians, Equites. . . .no real difference.
"AReasonableMan" thinks an objective view of facts, directed at Democrats, is hatred.
"AReasonableMan":
Please provide an explanation for the huge donations of money by foreign governments, to a charity that keeps most of the donations it receives, run by a former president and Secretary of State, while both became very wealthy, that does not involve bribery or buying official favors.
Assumptions will be challenged so be thorough.
"I don't think more democracy is always best. The Senate is terrible now that state legislatures no longer name their own Senators instead of having voters do it."
I don't know how we got to presidential primaries instead of smoke-filled rooms, but I think it was a bad idea.
"Some people voted for Bush Jr., twice. There is a lot of herd mentality of both sides of the aisle."
Bush/Gore? Easy choice.
Bush/Kerry? Easy choice.
"Which party should we hate more?"
So if you hate both parties, then the obvious vote is for Trump. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the Democratic Party establishment while a vote for Trump is a vote against the Republican Party establishment.
It's funny that the United Nations's et la intention was to monitor and prevent Americans from denying Obama the president's office, but they failed to monitor and prevent Obama's faction(s) from denying Clinton the president's office. The gatekeepers' priorities, I guess, have changed.
Also, there is not a person named Bush, Jr for whom anybody voted for president.
That is the sort of tiresome bull shit you normally avoid, "AReasonableMan". Be precise.
"AReasonableMan":
Please provide a legitimate purpose behind the 2008 Obama Campaign's choice to turn off credit card security checks.
Birkel said...
Please provide an explanation for the huge donations of money by foreign governments, to a charity that keeps most of the donations it receives, run by a former president and Secretary of State, while both became very wealthy, that does not involve bribery or buying official favors.
Or, explain the bizarrely close relationship between the House of Saud and the House of Bush. If you are going to get outraged, go the full Monty, get outraged at both sides.
Original Mike said...
Chuck said ..."If you don't have a strong party affiliation, I don't understand why you or others like you should be picking party nominees."
Because it's a fact that the eventual ruler will be one of the two parties nominees. To bar us from voting in a primary is disenfranchisement.
I didn't actually suggest barring you from voting. I just don't understand why it is legitimate, for folks who genuinely feel that "the GOP establishment" is evil, and who wish for the destruction of the Republican Party, would be encouraged to vote in Republican primaries.
But since you raised it, yeah; I favor closed primaries. In a big way.
And if you don't like a certain political party, stay out of its primary. Get your own fucking party. And hold your own primary. And leave the Republicans out of your outrage theater.
How about an internet show called Lonelygirl70something featuring Hillary Clinton talking about her new life.
It might appeal to the world's creepy fascination with seeing an old woman alone in her cell.
"I didn't actually suggest barring you from voting."
Of course you did.
"I just don't understand why it is legitimate, for folks who genuinely feel that "the GOP establishment" is evil, and who wish for the destruction of the Republican Party, would be encouraged to vote in Republican primaries.
But since you raised it, yeah; I favor closed primaries. In a big way.
And if you don't like a certain political party, stay out of its primary. Get your own fucking party. And hold your own primary. And leave the Republicans out of your outrage theater."
For the record, i feel no outrage towards "the establishment GOP". I think the entire concept of the establishment GOP is ridiculous. But if you want me out of "your" primary, pay for the fucking thing yourself.
AReasonableMan said...
cubanbob said...
Can someone explain to me why the Democrat Party could reasonably be expected to support a criminal and traitor
Just guessing here, but I suspect that the Democrats don't view Hillary through quite the same prism of hate that you apparently do. The extreme hyperbole doesn't really move the needle for the people you might want to convince, if that is your goal. Much like calling Trump a Nazi or a fascist on the other side of the aisle.
6/18/16, 12:17 PM"
I see. If a Republican were to do what Hillary has in actual and incontrovertible fact done the demand would be for a hanging. Her email server scandal has no legal justification whatsoever. It's criminal on it's face. Her risking national security is equally indefensible on it's face. The Russians are on record with hacking the DNC server which was no less secure than Hillary's. Why would an honest, reasonable man assume for a moment she didn't risk national security? The donations to her family foundation by foreign governments while she was SoS and Department of State contributions to the Clinton Initiative while she was SoS with the Clinton's getting several million dollars of income as part of the deal and I'm the one viewing through a prism of hate? Clinton's criminality and treason aren't opinions, the observation is a recital of fact. And by the way, speaking of Nazi's and fascists, in both terms of methods of governance and ideology that would be a better fit for Clinton than Trump.
Which party should we hate more?
Fool's errand to decide, but unfortunately typical of the obfuscation that prevails here. Parties are corporations, they are institutions there to serve their own purpose - though if there are few enough of them then they can dominate and squeeze out true competition, as the case now with their stranglehold on the debate commission.
You can even hate the person heading the party, but that's just as stupid. As with a company, they won't change until forced to by allowing competition. Until then, it's as dumb to hate one or the other as it is to hate Coca Cola or Pepsi.
You are going along with their machine by even asking the question. They are all a part of government, which appease your commenters by pretending to hate as equally as they do. But government cannot be reined in under a two-party stranglehold. This starts with removing their power over the debate commissions and proceeding from there.
IF you cared about your country... which is an open question.
You assumed I have not been so outraged. You also seem to have assumed your trivial attempt at evasion would be accepted.
You failed, "AReasonableMan".
Why don't you try a reasonable approximation of a reasonable argument?
Bernie was always a mooch on the Democrat Party; just as Trump is on the Repubs.
"Why would an honest, reasonable man assume for a moment she didn't risk national security?"
A reasonable man would.
Like when an Islamic terorist guns down 49 people in a gun free zone and you and your only outraged response is to call for less protection for potential victims.
You are not calling for them to be protected and made safe from victimization.
You are telling everyone that unless they pack heat 24/7 then they deserve to die.
No one should be compelled to perpetually self-weaponize in a free state. If that had been the case then the new republic wouldn't have kept its militias and allowed and enforced police powers so soon.
Dummy.
"Rhythm and Balls":
Can you name another system that accomplishes your preferred goals? Please expound on the solutions you just know would work better.
"Rhythm and Balls":
In what other context should the victims of aggression use hope as a strategy?
Should the gazelles hope that the lion will not kill them?
"Or, explain the bizarrely close relationship between the House of Saud and the House of Bush. If you are going to get outraged, go the full Monty, get outraged at both sides."
ARM do keep up with current events. George W Bush isn't running for president this year. Hillary Rodham "The Felonious Traitor" Clinton is. Say what you will, there is no evidence that George W Bush was bought and paid for directly by the Saudi's as is the case with the Clinton's and while George W Bush walked hand-in-hand with with the Saudi King he didn't bow and scrape to the Saudi King like Barack Hussein Obama.
So give us a reasonable explanation of why despite the obvious facts Hillary didn't commit any felonies in terms of public records laws, national securities laws and corruption laws. Something other than well the Republicans are just bad....
cubanbob said...
So give us a reasonable explanation of why despite the obvious facts Hillary didn't commit any felonies in terms of public records laws, national securities laws and corruption laws.
She hasn't been indicted much less convicted of anything. When partisans get involved no fact is 'obvious', it's all just one big spin zone. You actually hurt your own case, much the same as when the House impeached Bill and his popularity then soared.
"She hasn't been indicted much less convicted of anything."
So, reasonable man, why did she do it?
Birkel said...
"Rhythm and Balls":
In what other context should the victims of aggression use hope as a strategy?
Should the gazelles hope that the lion will not kill them?
6/18/16, 12:59 PM
In Africa gazelles are called McDonalds. Everyone eats them.
R & B no one is advocating that everyone should be armed. However banning guns only works on the law abiding. This guy in Orlando didn't just snap and kill 49 people. He was thinking and planning it for quite sometime. Even with a gun ban how do you know he wasn't smart enough to learn how to either acquire a weapon illegally or make one himself? Laws have limitations in what they can prevent otherwise there would be no need for prisons.
Give a reasonable explanation that passes the "you must be shitting me" test.
cubanbob:
The point is gazelles have developed methods of self-protection. It may not be as effective as we like, but they are not passive victims.
Give them guns, a la The Far Side, and the gazelles would use them against predators.
AReasonableMan said...
cubanbob said...
So give us a reasonable explanation of why despite the obvious facts Hillary didn't commit any felonies in terms of public records laws, national securities laws and corruption laws.
She hasn't been indicted much less convicted of anything. When partisans get involved no fact is 'obvious', it's all just one big spin zone. You actually hurt your own case, much the same as when the House impeached Bill and his popularity then soared.
6/18/16, 1:05 PM"
So none of these things occurred? Or they aren't crimes in of themselves if she isn't indicted? Nixon was never impeached or indicted so are you saying he was illegally forced out of office? Clinton's popularity soared among Democrats but not so much among the electorate as witnessed by the failure to have Gore elected to the Third Clinton. Says a lot that Clinton supporters think that a man who harassed an intern, used security to cover for his indiscretions and was found guilty of perjury is an OK and popular guy.
Meanwhile, longtime GOP faithful bitch that the RNC didn't do the same thing for its favorite sons... I.e., couldn't they have rigged it for Bush/Rubio? Why do we send them money if they can't even manage a rigged nomination?
She hasn't been indicted much less of anything
You could say the same thing about Michael Corleone.
"You could say the same thing about Michael Corleone."
I think he realized he embarrassed himself.
AReasonableMan, 12:23:
"Some people voted for Bush Jr. [sic], twice. There is a lot of herd mentality of both sides of the aisle."
It wasn't herd mentality. I don't give a damn what the voters around me think, I preferred him to both Al Gore and to John F'ing Kerry. There are many things I regret about his presidency, but my preferring him to the alternatives isn't one of them.
Bernie lost the day he announced. He never even tried to win, if he wanted to he could have attacked Hilary on the e-mail scandal and her massive corruption. But he never did, except in the mildest terms possible.
Like most leftists, he considered the Republicans the TRUE enemy, and would rather have lost then give them ANY ammunition.
Which is completely different from the Republican elite, who are working to elect Hillary.
Imagine Gore as president on 9/11.
Now imagine Hillary as president for the next 9/11 style attack.
Notice how all talk of the Bernie Bros voting 3rd party or staying home has evaporated?
The whole thing was a myth. The Bernie Bros were just leftists indulging in a fantasy. Now, its back to reality and supporting a Dem against the racist, bigoted, dumb, hate-filled Republican.
"I don't know what the answer is now, but I do feel outraged, and Trump symbolizes outrage and Hillary embodies the absence of outrage. So signs would seem to point to Trump. Except that he's so over-the-top weird that people might step back from the cliff and not take the leap."
http://freebeacon.com/columns/self-immolation-republican-party/
"It’s a joke. All of it: his candidacy, the apparatus of propaganda and grift surrounding it, the failures of governance and education and culture that have brought us to this place. What disturbs me most is the prospect that Donald Trump is what a very large number of Republican voters want: not a wonk, not an orator, not a statesman, not even a leader, really, if by leader you mean someone who persuades and inspires and manages a team to pursue a common good. They just want a man who vents their anger at targets above and below their status.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity. It’s what one expects of teenagers, artists, bloggers, pajama boys—immature, peevish, radical, self-destructive behavior. If that is how Republican voters would like to end their days, in a defensive posture of suspicion and loathing of this big crazy wonderful country that has made them literally the wealthiest and most entitled generation of human beings in the history of the world, well, that’s their right as Americans, I suppose. Best of luck. The Darwin Award will be ready for you November 9."
I know how you folks loathe cut and pastes, but honestly could it be stated any better than this? No.
"I know how you folks loathe cut and pastes, but honestly could it be stated any better than this? No."
And yet you keep doing it. Formulate your own arguments, if you have any. Garage used cut and paste from loony left sites and he was laughed out of the room.
R & B no one is advocating that everyone should be armed.
Come on. You know that's what your masters at the NRA view as the only solution, to the extent that they even envision a solution. They won't rest until there's a gun (preferably an AR-15) in the hands of every man, woman and child. Keeping people from getting shot is not their concern.
However banning guns only works on the law abiding.
What an ingenious statement. You know what also only "works" supposedly on the law-abiding? Laws. Let's get rid of them as we clearly still have criminals!
But there's a better solution. Law enforcement. You know that the bills to keep terrorists from legally purchasing guns (as your friend in Orlando did) are being debated right now. Even the NRA and RNC can't duck out of this one now. Maybe they'll stall and delay and fuck over the unarmed eventually - but they realize there's no rhetorical defense for allowing the sale of guns to people deemed too dangerous to get on a metal tube in the sky.
Some people voted for Bush Jr., twice. There is a lot of herd mentality of both sides of the aisle.
Yes, Bush is just like those. And while he was a bad President --- he was the better option. To paraphrase Rumsfeld: You fight with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.
Hell, Democrats, by a decent majority, like Hillary. So, the Left doesn't learn lessons, obviously.
Or, explain the bizarrely close relationship between the House of Saud and the House of Bush. If you are going to get outraged, go the full Monty, get outraged at both sides.
The same House of Saud shoveling money to Hillary?
I notice you don't seem outraged...
You are not calling for them to be protected and made safe from victimization.
You are telling everyone that unless they pack heat 24/7 then they deserve to die.
No. Leaving people to die at the hands of a lunatic for hours on the assumption that the police will help them --- as SWAT stayed outside for 3 hours and shot several of the innocent as well --- is morally wrong.
No one should be compelled to perpetually self-weaponize in a free state. If that had been the case then the new republic wouldn't have kept its militias and allowed and enforced police powers so soon.
Nobody should have to go to court to fight unjust laws.
Yet it happens. All of the time.
Vigilance is the only protection one has for freedom.
She hasn't been indicted much less convicted of anything.
Nixon wasn't either. I guess he did nothing wrong. Hillary would disagree, but hey, YMMV.
When partisans get involved no fact is 'obvious', it's all just one big spin zone.
Are you disputing that she did her government business exclusively on a personal server?
Not personal email, ala Gmail. A server she controlled?
If you are...why? That isn't even debatable.
If you are not...why is that not a problem?
Laws have limitations in what they can prevent otherwise there would be no need for prisons.
Great idea, but did you know that people can break out of prisons? I mean, apparently prisons have their limitations also. I hereby move that we should no longer imprison or incarcerate, pending a 10-year moratorium during which we can investigate how we can make prisons completely escape-proof. Clearly these means are not 100% effective at keeping violent dangerous people out of society and should therefore be scrapped entirely.
Cracker,
There are times when someone else has said something so much better than one possibly could. I have many opinions and thoughts of my own and often voice them, but when I run across something so damn good, I'm going to share it with both the willing and the unwilling. Sorry if you don't believe in reading and sharing other's opinions, I do.
And Cracker, I'd think you would know that the Washington Free Beacon is a RIGHT wing site. Maybe you should do some more reading and you wouldn't make such a mistake.
Come on. You know that's what your masters at the NRA view as the only solution, to the extent that they even envision a solution.
They want everybody to be able to responsibly handle firearms. They are huge on teaching courses on proper usage. I don't see them demanding felons be allowed to buy guns --- however, if they're given the vote, I can find no logical argument against them owning guns.
They won't rest until there's a gun (preferably an AR-15) in the hands of every man, woman and child. Keeping people from getting shot is not their concern.
"That guy who locks his door. He is only worried about his stuff. He doesn't care about trying to fix the root cause of crime!"
You cannot stop all bad guys. You can defend yourself in case you need to against one of those bad guys.
What an ingenious statement. You know what also only "works" supposedly on the law-abiding? Laws. Let's get rid of them as we clearly still have criminals!
Says the guy who feels gun laws will stop people who commit murder. Because murder laws have so much less of a downside than violating gun laws.
You know that the bills to keep terrorists from legally purchasing guns (as your friend in Orlando did) are being debated right now.
R&B: "Due process? Who the fuck needs due process? WE GOTS A LIST, BITCHES!!!"
Rational person: "How does one get on the list?
R & B: "No real criteria. But the government wouldn't try to stifle rights for no reason."
Rational: What if they make a mistake?
R & B: They won't. It's the GOVERNMENT man. A fucking well-oiled machine.
Rational: Will I be told I'm on a list?
R & B: No.
Rational: Can I get off the list if it was a mistake?
R & B: It's really hard --- and probably no, you can't. The government wouldn't make a mistake. They never have before.
My, that sounds like a great idea. Let's let the "racist, bigoted police" who "shoot black folks for no reason" as the only people allowed to own guns legally.
And don't worry, no chance this whole end run around due process cannot be used to restrict other rights. I'm sure "free speech" will hold up great if you're on a "hate speech list". Why would bigots need free speech, amirite?
Maybe they'll stall and delay and fuck over the unarmed eventually - but they realize there's no rhetorical defense for allowing the sale of guns to people deemed too dangerous to get on a metal tube in the sky.
Except for that whole due process thing Progressives have suddenly decided is too problematic.
Miriam:
We will grant you that nearly everybody writes everything better than do you. Now, Inga, run away.
Birkel,
No one missed you during your absence....except me of course.
You are telling everyone that unless they pack heat 24/7 then they deserve to die.
This is the fallacy of the false alternatives in action once again. As long as some of us are allowed to carry firearms, it almost doesn't matter how few of us there are as long as the number is enough to make it essentially 95% odds or higher that there will be someone there to shoot back, then crazy guys like Omar Mateen aren't going to risk it. They figure they can get two or three or maybe four as they're coming in the door, but then they're going to find out what it feels like to take a bullet themselves. All we are asking is to be allowed to protect ourselves and the rest of you sheep when the wolf comes howling at the door.
Miriam:
I don't know that we have exchanged a single comment with you using this name. Perhaps you should tell me all the other names you have used so I can appreciate your full brilliance.
Gun grabbers: why do killers target gun free zones and not gun ranges? Gun ranges will have way more guns and ammo immediately available.
Yet they eschew attacking there.
Why?
Birkel,
I hope you recieved good care at the treatment center. I did miss your brilliant contributions here in your absence.
A list of names, Miriam.
Nice messing with you Birkel, it's been a pleasure.
This is the fallacy of the false alternatives in action once again. As long as some of us are allowed to carry firearms, it almost doesn't matter how few of us there are as long as the number is enough to make it essentially 95% odds or higher that there will be someone there to shoot back, then crazy guys like Omar Mateen aren't going to risk it. They figure they can get two or three or maybe four as they're coming in the door, but then they're going to find out what it feels like to take a bullet themselves. All we are asking is to be allowed to protect ourselves and the rest of you sheep when the wolf comes howling at the door.
This is the fallacy of the no evidence assertion. Also, the fallacy of the "not enough guns" assertion.
As long as they don't make guns that work well on the dance floors of discotheques I predict that neither one of those propositions would have worked. Also, when people are out dancing they kind of care more about their own happiness and having fun than about being killed. I realize that you would like to instill the fear of being shot and killed into everyone everywhere at all times but that psychology only works on the loony right-wingers. Not on normal, psychologically healthy people.
Gun ranges will have way more guns and ammo immediately available.
Yet they eschew attacking there.
Why?
I don't know. You're the one who seems to claim to be able to think like them.
I guess they're one of your own, Omar Bateen and you. Gun owners one and all. Legal gun owners.
Who both probably oppose the no guns for terrorists restrictions.
You have more in common with him and his ilk than you do with us. Go speak to his kind for us, since you know and identify with him so well.
It's good to know that damikesc (whatever that means) is so shitty at debating me that she'll invent an entire monologue in her head of things she can only imagine me saying.
I an not sure this email points to some grand conspiracy. I know victim hood and conspiracies are the flavor of month now a days. All this email shows is that one person was thinking ahead to the general election. Is there truly anyone who took Sander's as a threat to Hilary Clinton a month into the primary season? I know many of you believe this can be a wedge issue for the democrats or wishful thinking that "they are just as messed up as us" but really. Come back to planet earth everyone. The establishment is hoping the establishment candidate wins is just like dog bites man headlines. No grand conspiracy. Actually all the more proof Sanders deserved to lose. If he can not influence his own party's ....oops...the Democratic Party's machinery then he really does not stand a chance in the election. Of course, Trump controlling the reigns of his party may be the death of the GOP for a generation or more.
Yeah, only terrorists can figure out why they don't target gun ranges.
Probably bad luck.
You have a keen grasp of human psychology.
"Rhythm and Balls":
You cannot figure out what damikesc means? Really?
da - mike - sc
DA - Mike - SC
Really?
And R&B...the dialogue was filling in the shit you are unaware of in these bills you support.
I was making you smarter than you are...But you cannot always educate a moron.
So imagine that Trump somehow wins.
Day 1: He picks up the phone, calls the head of DHS, and says, "Gotta keep guns away from terrorists. So listen, anybody goes in one of those radical mosques, get their name and put them on the list. Can't be too careful."
The head of the DHS says, "Umm, I don't think we can do that."
President Trump says, "Alright, so what's the process to decide who gets on one of these lists?"
The head of the DHS says, "Umm. Okay, we can do it. But people are going to be mad."
I know why Trump backtracked and thought it might be okay to ban people who wound up on a watch list with no good way to get off of it.
I also find it funny that R&B and the terrorist have identical voting records federally.
Senator Joe Manchin already let the "due process mask" slip.
People like Althouse will object too late that the Party they have (mostly) supported turn the legal system on itself.
Who will be first against the wall?
The person on the Terrorist Watch List won't have their due process abrogated. They will be investigated, during that investigation their right to buy a gun will be on hold temporarily. It won't be taken away unless the investigation finds that they are on the Terrorist Watch list rightfully.
And R&B...the dialogue was filling in the shit you are unaware of in these bills you support.
The things? Ooooh. Sounds spooky. Like the things that say terrorists never have an interest in arming themselves legally.
Guns kill more people than they "save" and there is no amount of mandated/forced carrying you can legislate that will ever change that. Neither can you get the family of the AR-15's inventor to agree that they should have been used as anything other than weapons of war.
But indulge your fantasies anyway. You use guns as accessories, the way a lion uses its mane. It's all about intimidation. They kill more than they protect and that will always be the case for as long as national and international statistics exist. It's all just about making yourself feel like a badass. Better than a dumbass.
I also find it funny that R&B and the terrorist have identical voting records federally.
Oh really? How did he vote? (If he did). How do I vote? I guess you think our 2nd amendment positions must be similar.
I think his views on that were closer to yours, you conversational pretzel.
But oh wait. Let us slur a whole half of the entire political spectrum. Yep, that's a much broader net for casting guilt-by-association than the fact that his gun views and yours aligned perfectly.
da - mike - sc
DA - Mike - SC
Nah, not really. It's just a bunch of lettersstrungtogetherrandomly. Whichturnseverythingintogibberish.
Get it?
GET IT?
Miriam:
Due process cannot be squared with depriving people of their constitutionally protected before conviction.
You seem confused by your own will to power.
Quit being a shitty troll "Rhythm and Balls".
Miriam, they ALREADY have had their rights abrogated. There is no due process to get on the list.
As of 2014, 40% of people on the list have no terror affiliation. https://theintercept.com/2014/08/05/watch-commander
If you're on the list, and it's a mistake, you're S.O.L. US District Court for OR said the list is arbitrary and capricious. Called it an insult to the Constitution and Administrative Procedure Act.
Dems want to ban people who are on the list...or have been in the last five years. This is acceptable?
"Rhythm and Balls":
How many lives do guns save? I want an answer directly after you prove the negative.
(The shitty troll comment was reserved for the typingwordstogetherlikeadickhead comment.)
DO it Bernie voters. The DNC was undermining your candidate from day one. The only option for your is to vote third party.
R&B, he was a registered Democrat. He voted Democrat. I guess the Lefts self-professed hatred of fascism is over now.
Quit being a shitty troll "Rhythm and Balls".
It gives merely halfway shitty professional trolls like Birkel a bad name.
Birkel,
The people on the Terrorist Watch are getting their due process during the investigation process and are allowed to petition the court to get themselves off the list if they are innocent. When they waltz into a gun store and try to buy a gun and are denied because of being on said watch list, those possible terrorists are given due process by the investigation itself. If they are deemed wrongfully on the list, they will be taken off and allowed to purchase the gun. Do you understand what due process means? The person on the terrorist watch list and finds out because he tried to purchase a gun has the option of using the judicial system to clear their names and reputation.
R & B's soulmate firing a AR 15:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSmMPhnnNo0
Apologies to halfway shitty professional trolls ...
I've registered Democrat. I've registered Republican. The only point as far as I see it is to be able to vote in closed primaries.
But on the main issue of needing to feel important by slinging around AR-15s you and he were peas in a pod. Just no daylight between the two of you at all.
On the salient point.
Not on a minor pissy point of how many tens of millions of people each of only two parties with dozens of positions and a pretty strong variety of voting blocs might receive votes from.
I mean, that's a stupid point that has nothing to do with your "guns for terrorists!" views. The public is much more interested in that, as would be any rational, decent person.
Mainstreet hooker just linked a video of the orgasm she receives from discharging her device.
Blogger Birkel said...
A list of names, Miriam.
Let' see: the dumb ditz has called herself Amanda, Inga (her real first name), and wasn't she apfel something or other. I know there's been at least 5 or 6 names. She thoroughly beclowns herself and then moves on to another nic and thinks she's fooling people.
But the smug, brainless self-congratulatory tone is easy to spot. I guess there aren't any Republican plumbers around to screw these days and she has nothing better to do then hang around a blog where she is despised. She just loves the attention.
"...if they are innocent..." - Miriam
Nothing like assuming guilt, forcing people to prove their innocence and calling it Due Process.
You are a fascist and I want all of your kind to openly declare war.
Exile,
Are you related to Birkel? Interesting how you two are more interested in doxxing commenters here than discussing current events that affect all of us. Are you on steroids? You sound so masculine.
Are you on steroids? You sound so masculine.
She surgically had one of these attached to herself.
R&B,
I can believe that, lol. I detect 'roid rage every time she/he/it posts a comment. I bet she(?) has a hell of a time keeping up with that facial hair growth.
damikesc said...
Gun grabbers: why do killers target gun free zones and not gun ranges? Gun ranges will have way more guns and ammo immediately available.
Yet they eschew attacking there.
This is going to be news to Chris Kyle.
Bernie has always been adamant about being an independent and not a member of the party.
Even now on his senate and campaign sites he says he is an independent. Wikipedia is the only place I can find mention of his joining the party in dec 2015. Debbie wasserman said a few weeks ago she didn't know if he was a party member.
They can't do anything to keep him from being adenocrat candidate. I see no reason they should pretend he is a democrat.
Even less why they should do anything at all for him
Miriam said...
The person on the Terrorist Watch List won't have their due process abrogated. They will be investigated, during that investigation their right to buy a gun will be on hold temporarily. It won't be taken away unless the investigation finds that they are on the Terrorist Watch list rightfully.
6/18/16, 3:38 PM"
Hmm, when it comes to suspending rights and due process let's start with illegal aliens followed by suspending the right to vote for those on welfare. And let's not forget the right to run for office for those suspected of treason and criminal acts.
Exile's hero, Trump, on gun sales to those on terror watch lists. LOL!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-inclination-terrorism-shouldnt-buy-guns/story?id=39961668
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump is reaffirming his stance on potentially restricting individuals on the terror watch list from being able to purchase firearms, a week after the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.
"We have to make sure that people that are terrorists or have even an inclination toward terrorism cannot buy weapons, guns," Trump told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl in an interview to air Sunday on "This Week."
Asked by Karl if his position is that those on the no-fly or terror watch list should not be able to purchase a gun, Trump responded, "I'd like to see that, and I'd like to say it. And it's simpler. It's just simpler."
In a tweet Wednesday, Trump announced he would meet with the NRA to discuss banning those on the terror watch list or no fly list from buying guns"
Miriam, any other rights we should unilaterally suspend until you prove you deserve it?
If this bill passes, violence should be the result.
Uh, ditzy little Inga, "doxing" refers to posting personal information about Internet commenters in such a way that they may be identified offline, such as revealing their full name. Contrary to what you might believe, there is more than one "Inga" in the United States. I realize that you are so embarrassed by some of the things you have shared with us that you have to keep changing nics. Perhaps you should stop posting while drunk (same goes for Ritmo).
It's not a surprise that you are as confused and sloppy in your use of that term as you are in everything else you write. Yours is a confused and sloppy mind.
Again, the same goes for the ball-less one who worked himself into such a ridiculous lather the other night before screaming "I hate you!" like a three year old and stomping off. You have to have a confused mind to think that someone is both A. 'roided up (believe me, I'm not in a rage at all, I'm laughing at you) and B. a gold digger. Women with facial hair generally do not have much success gold digging, you silly little twerp.
But if either of you made sense or thought logically, you wouldn't be leftists now, would you?
Ta-ta, sweeties! Off to enjoy the lovely evening...
Da Mike,
Feel free to riot.
AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
you're a parody
Like a majority of the country, bubble boy?
I see you have difficulty fitting like with like. Terrorism isn't about gun control. And for the record. No. the majority in this country aren't for more gun control.
And Chris Kyle was not murdered by a terrorist.
Now. Tell me your plan about how more gun control is going to prevent more terrorist murders.
I see ritmo has uncorked another bottle of gin.
Gosh, stop the presses! The DNC expected Hillary to be the nominee. Oh wait, back in May 2015 so did everybody. How devious of them to start making plans accordingly. Almost as devious as the RNC proceeding in the expectation their nominee would be Jeb! ... except the DNC actually understood its base, while the RNC turned out not to have a clue about its.
Blogger Miriam said...
Exile's hero, Trump, on gun sales to those on terror watch lists. LOL!
Uh, sweetie, when did I say Trump is my hero? I am voting for him only because Hillary is the evil hag from hell (which is why she is your hero).
Again, Inga, stop listening to those voices in your head, they're not real...
Eh, Exile, quit trying to act girlie now, we all know you shave your face daily. Every time you open your mouth you sound like a baritone 'roid rager. Roarrrrr in rage! LOL!
And R&B and Miriam are on Trump's side. Good to know.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day da Mike.
"You sound so masculine."
That's because you think logic and reason are masculine.
Incoherent bimbos do tend to think that.
Ooooo did I hit a sensitive spot Exile? I thought you were leaving.
Whatever Inga.
Any more fake stories about your fictional Marine daughter?
That's because you think logic and reason are masculine.
Nothing you've said has been remotely logical or reasonable, roid rager.
Incoherent bimbos do tend to think that.
I realize you fancy yourself a she-wolf or Amazonian. That doesn't make actual, decent women who lack your aggressive nastiness "incoherent bimbos".
Blogger Miriam said...
Ooooo did I hit a sensitive spot Exile? I thought you were leaving.
6/18/16, 4:59 PM
It's hard to pull myself away, there is so much stupid to mock and ridicule.
But I'll leave now. You and ball-less eunuch can continue performing virtual cunnilingus on each other.
Exile,
I hope you know that steroid use in high dosages and for a prolonged periods can result in psychosis. Just sayin' don't get mad.
If you keep up the T shots and pumping iron, exiled, your clit will end up looking like this.
I understand that might be how you like it. But just think of all the temporary trophy boyfriends who won't even keep you for the obligatory two-week mark once you're all like that.
Bernie Sanders won't get much sympathy from Democrats because (I know, as a former Liberal Democrat) that Democrats admire Ty Cobb "spikes up" hardball politics. Of course the race was rigged. No small part of that was (you'll never hear them say it) but there is a whole lot of buyer's remorse among many Liberals over Obama. At first they delighted in answering every criticism against Obama with (you could call it black skin privilege) "that's racist." But, soon, many began to realize that Obama secretly had some very bizarre and "far from the mainstream" views. Friends of mine who are sensitive to such things tell me privately they think he is an anti-semite, or more bluntly, a Jew hater. Bernie doesn't have black skin and Democrats have had enough of the sub rosa bizarre with Obama. So, no, the Democrats look back on the Clinton years as the good times and they want it back. Of course, as John Lennon once said, life is what happens while you're making other plans.
Jeb was supposed to be the nominee. He had everything he needed, except for one thing. Since Jeb speaks Spanish at home, he will understand the word for what he lacked: ganas. Desire. I think his wife wanted it desperately and he wanted it not at all. Everybody wanted Jeb except Jeb and so he subconsciously flubbed it. He went through the motions to please his wife but that never works.
In many ways, Trump is a ridiculous candidate, but we live in ridiculous times. Our leaders look upon our Constitution, our laws, our institutions as an impediment to their plans when it is primarily the person they see in the mirror when they groom that is to blame for the mess. The Republican voters look upon their "leaders" as cowards, liars, and buffoons. And the Republican leaders look upon their voters as the enemy. Many are trying to find their way "back" to something familiar. That's a nice sentiment but I'm not sure we have a common vision about that anymore.
R&B,
I'm betting that if we were to be in the presence of Mr.Exile in person, we would be shot dead. One of the reasons the mentally ill should never own guns.
So Miriam and R&B are incapable of honest discussion.
Let's let the trolls roll in feces. They bring nothing to the table.
So, Miriam, what other rights must U.S. citizens prove they deserve before you honor them?
Embrace your barely-concealed inner fascist.
One of the reasons the mentally ill should never own guns.
It's a fact that a gun owner is much more likely to kill themselves with the gun than to ever, ever stop a crime with it.
It's all about the show.
So Miriam and R&B are incapable of honest discussion.
So says someone who fabricated a complete few dozen lines of imaginary dialogue with me based on what she had to pretend that I should have said, rather than asking me directly.
Embrace your barely-concealed inner fascist.
It must be difficult in cyberspace, not being able to brandish a firearm at others in order to prove that they don't control you.
Here's a question. When you feel powerless, which I take it must be often, do you brandish your own firearm (real or imaginary) to yourself in order to feel better?
Gee whiz, you spend a lot of time thinking about firearms and handling firearms, R&B, There is an obvious Freudian association. Maybe you should talk to someone about it. Get healthy.
Rusty said...
No. the majority in this country aren't for more gun control.
Wrong, as usual.
But if either of you made sense or thought logically, you wouldn't be leftists now, would you?
I forgot that right-wing conservatism was the philosophy based in presuming that logical reasoning could be used to improve the world.
Nah, Terry. It's just that I know that person's type. (The one who was booted to the curb on Main Street).
It's thankfully a rare one, but unmistakeable.
You'd see it too, if you ever got out of your house.
Ban gun sales to people on the federal no-fly watch list.... 71%
The right-wing war against the wishes of the American people continues apace.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"But on the main issue of needing to feel important by slinging around AR-15s you and he were peas in a pod. Just no daylight between the two of you at all."
I have AR-15's. I like them. I have used them to shoot people. Not around here of course. Is there something wrong with me having AR-15's? Do you think you should be able to keep me from owning them?
What gives you that right?
And I would like you to clarify the comment about daylight. Are you saying I am the same as Omar Mateen?
Is there something wrong with me having AR-15's?
Ask the family of the guy who invented them. They say he lamented the idea of making specifically designed weapons of war for civilian "use". Or misuse, as your own comment alludes to, since the point you make about them actually is centered around using them to shoot people "not around here"... which implies in one of our nice little imperial war zones outside of U.S. territory.
Do you think you should be able to keep me from owning them?
That "I" should? I think that the will of the people should figure into the obvious restrictions that even Scalia's precious little penumbra of a legal baby, the Heller decision, allows for. There are even time, place, manner restrictions on speech, a right placed in more fundamental order to the 2nd, at 1st place. Scalia talks about banning dangerous weapons, or words to that effect. Saturday Night Specials, etc. Weapons effectively banned years before he could speak to how "popular" they might have otherwise become.
What gives you that right?
Keep personalizing it. The logic above is clear - assuming you actually have respect for Scalia's own jurisprudence, let alone the law itself.
And I would like you to clarify the comment about daylight. Are you saying I am the same as Omar Mateen?
I used that comment with someone equated me to that person on account of Democratic politicians. You are not as unhinged or messed up as that person. So no, I didn't and wouldn't apply it to you. You actually like to think about things every now and then and don't hate your fellow Americans like that other person clearly does. Context matters.
Omar Mateen did not use an AR-15.
Meanwhile, 71% of people agree with a biased question presented by the MSM. It's a wonder that number is not higher given the propaganda against self-defense.
"Rhythm and Balls" continues to assume things about other commenters and generally argue in bad faith. With a stronger argument, such bull shit might not be necessary.
...the propaganda against self-defense.
Oh yeah. All that propaganda against using any device or behavior or maneuver or action to defend yourself. Yup. That's pretty big in America. Unless you used a high-powered firearm then you didn't really defend yourself. We will now cut off people's fists and remove their wits because those things can be defensive, also.
Although the last time Birkel used his wits to defend himself is not clear. It wouldn't be fair to expect a brain like his to get him out of a dicey situation. Or anything, really.
"Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
No. the majority in this country aren't for more gun control.
Wrong, as usual."
No, it all depends on how the question is asked. I think the mentally ill and Muslim radicals should not have access to guns. How do you do that?
Take them away from sane law abiding citizens ? Of course not.
I see that this was a good day to do something other than Althouse.
Define "high powered", please.
Hmm, at the risk of personalizing -
I havent owned a gun in 20 years, giving away the Colt Woodsman (more a toy than a weapon anyway) I had from my father in law at the time. The deadliest weapon in the house probably is my wifes marble rolling pin (I understand it is excellent for cookies), which is what I would go for if it came to repelling boarders.
But I wouldnt consider that the America I love is the America I love if Michael couldnt have his AR15. Americans are Americans because they feel free to spit in the eye of authority. The more of that the better.
Things of the spirit are enormously important.
The spiritual dimension of anti-establishment attitudes -
In most of the world the people detest their rulers. That is normal. They also defy them, but not to their faces. The face of rebellion is blank. Behind the face all sorts of things are thought and done, much of it in what moderns like to term passive-aggression.
Americans are notably openly and frankly aggressive.
Americans are Americans because they feel free to spit in the eye of authority.
Which is probably why you're not an authority on anything.
"Americans are Americans because they feel free to spit in the eye of authority."
"Which is probably why you're not an authority on anything."
Nor an American.
Oh come, both of you can do better than that.
Oooh, you two are really knocking it out of the park today.
he really should change his name to vizzini,
as for red queen's other accomplishments,
http://www.weaselzippers.us/278168-former-gitmo-prisoner-disappears-i-south-america-prompting-search/
connect the dots, what dots,
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/17/nyu-paid-orlando-jihadis-trip-saudi-arabia/
Nor an American.
True.
Wonder what his fellow Trump supporters think about that.
I love how the non American continually tries to define what is "American" to Americans.
Nobody but a non-American can define "American" to Americans.
You Americans haven't the perspective. That is why, for instance, de Toqueville is so valuable.
I am here as your valuable resource, a modern Toqueville. I serve humbly.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Is there something wrong with me having AR-15's?
"Ask the family of the guy who invented them. They say he lamented the idea of making specifically designed weapons of war for civilian "use". Or misuse, as your own comment alludes to, since the point you make about them actually is centered around using them to shoot people "not around here"... which implies in one of our nice little imperial war zones outside of U.S. territory."
The family of the guy that invented them could be as stupid as gun grabbers or as evil as Omar Mateen. Non Sequitur. They are designed to shoot things. That is their purpose. What you do not address is the fundamental balance between citizen and state.
Do you think you should be able to keep me from owning them?
"That "I" should? I think that the will of the people should figure into the obvious restrictions that even Scalia's precious little penumbra of a legal baby, the Heller decision, allows for. There are even time, place, manner restrictions on speech, a right placed in more fundamental order to the 2nd, at 1st place. Scalia talks about banning dangerous weapons, or words to that effect. Saturday Night Specials, etc. Weapons effectively banned years before he could speak to how "popular" they might have otherwise become."
Basically the dangerous weapons are ones that poor people can afford. Noted.
What gives you that right?
"Keep personalizing it. The logic above is clear - assuming you actually have respect for Scalia's own jurisprudence, let alone the law itself."
I am going to personalize it. You aren't trying to keep Omar Mateen from shooting people. Nothing you propose would change what he did at all. Everything you propose is aimed at me, the law abiding gun owner.
And I would like you to clarify the comment about daylight. Are you saying I am the same as Omar Mateen?
"I used that comment with someone equated me to that person on account of Democratic politicians. You are not as unhinged or messed up as that person. So no, I didn't and wouldn't apply it to you. You actually like to think about things every now and then and don't hate your fellow Americans like that other person clearly does. Context matters."
I wouldn't take for granted that I don't hate my "fellow Americans." I will die for their freedom. But some seem intent on taking my freedoms from me.
Ann, you need better quality trolls.
Well, Achilles. I'll wait to respond until you actually say something worth responding to.
In the meantime, your identification with terrorism watch list suspects is noted.
No wonder a Republican president and Congress were in office during 9/11. It could only have happened that way.
They are designed to shoot things.
Obviously in a manner that you've personally experienced to be more appropriate to war zones.
But keep slithering around the fact that there should be distinctions between civilian and military grade weapons. You're not fooling anyone. This is not the forum where you can just settle things by shooting dead whatever you don't like. If you're going to be slippery with an argument - let alone make a decent one, that will take a different skill set than the one you seem to possess.
I spent part of the day at the grave of my great, great uncle who died in the Union Army at the age of 19.
Then I visited the grave of his niece and nephew who died at the ages of 10 years and of 6 months.
Then the grave of my great, great grandmother who was born in Ireland in 1804 and had her first of 12 children at age 17.
Two of her sons died in the Civil War. The rest, but one, lived to old age. He, the youngest, died at age 40 when kicked in the head by a horse. He left a wife and two children.
You fools are not fit to exist in the country they built. You know who you are.
Glad I was not here to see the nonsense posted.
An alternative to the Second Amendment -
Taking an idea from "Game of Thrones" of which my wife is such a fan -
In trade for this, it is to be constitutionally specified that every Federal public official above a certain grade (both elected and appointed) is required to take part in a naked procession down the main street of a randomly selected US municipality, over a course of not less than three miles, on a fixed date (a national holiday), during which procession any citizen is free to perform any act short of fatal harm, all relevant laws Federal, State and local being suspended for the occasion.
Just a suggestion.
"Rhythm and Balls":
Define "high powered" in the context of firearms.
buwaya puti:
Without shoes.
buwaya puti said...
Oh come, both of you can do better than that.
Apparently not.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"Well, Achilles. I'll wait to respond until you actually say something worth responding to."
This is pathetic and the statement of a coward. It should be beneath you.
This is the crux of the issue. I believe the government serves the people. If the government can use a weapon domestically against the citizens, then the citizens have a right to have those same weapons. The racist bigot murderer police you all decry on a daily basis shouldn't have better weapons than me.
The presidents body guards have no right or need to be better armed than me. The Senators in congress and the wealthy oligarchs have no right to be above me in the eyes of the law. The government serves me. Not the other way around.
If you want to take away my rights to own or purchase guns then I have a right to challenge this action in court. A foundational principle of this country is the right to be judged by a jury of our peers. Due process isn't a problem to be eliminated. It is one of the principles that makes this country special and better.
The point of the second amendment is to facilitate rebellion against tyrannical authority. It is clear that was its intended purpose, that if the leaders betray the people, the people have a right to kill them, or try to. It should favor military weapons, above those of strictly civilian utility, in the same way that the First Amendment should favor political speech, being its point.
This (the second amendment) is, by the way, unique in the world, as a constitutional arrangement.
What you do not address is the fundamental balance between citizen and state.
No, I'm addressing that "balance."
It's just that I considered unarmed Americans to be citizens with rights and you don't.
In fact, the only Americans whose rights you seem concerned with are all those upstanding wonderful people on the terrorism watch list.
You feel the state should stand up for them, I see.
You just care more about the pride of gun owners than you do people who seem to find value in life by going about it in a less paranoid way.
Gay disco-goers are not heavily armed enough. Is there any end to all the fun, innocent pleasures in life that nearly deranged ammosexuals like you want to deprive everyone of? Just imagine all the generally unarmed events that Achilles would rule himself fit to change, if he were the king that he thinks he is. Armed weddings, armed first dates, armed tennis matches. Basically he wants to make weaponry of every sort ubiquitous, and thinks that's a "lifestyle choice" that should be rammed down everyone's throats. Because of, you know, how entirely natural it is to never have any activities or places that one should have the luxury of finding generally freer of violence than any others. Every place in America should be a gangland or war zone to him, because it makes him feel important. It appeals to his calling to "secure" it, and to badmouth anyone who just wants to enjoy it and not have to act as a one-person sniper, surveying every place they walk into for the sort of hostile threats that Achilles dreams of finding everywhere, lurking around every corner. So that he can shoot it down and feel really important.
You apparently need violence to feel important. Just imagine how un-important you'd feel if we actually lived in a place with less violent crime and less vigilante ammosexuality encouraged so that it could be outsourced to just any old civilian like you (you hope!) or anyone else to deal with it.
Glad I was not here to see the nonsense posted.
So are we.
Now go play American Warlord and glorify all the violence you dearly miss and missed seeing somewhere else.
And put all your guns to use for "building America" by repurposing the steel to put up a skyscraper or assemble a car. Or perform some other "unworthy" American activity, you violent, militant psychopath.
Self protection against criminals or even terrorists seems entirely beside the point of the second amendment, much less hunting or sport. I dont understand why either side harps on these things, they seem irrelevant.
This is a political institution, and the proper target of the arms are government officials and their agents.
This is pathetic and the statement of a coward.
Coward. Lol!
Even with my having better things to do than waste time on your violence, you feel compelled to use the language of aggression.
The best thing about disassembling the empire we use to worsen threats - aside from ending some bloated contractor lobbying... oh, and from making Southern American communities economically self-reliant instead of clamoring for military pork... Oh, and from making us the Middle East's rent-a-cop... (that's a lot of good things) - is that it will teach warlords and toy soldiers like you that there are more important things in life than perpetuating violence. And that if you don't adapt to that fact and that priority, then your tribal skills will be just as out-of-date and irrelevant to the economy as a videotape rental store clerk's.
Just get used to the fact that your violent order-following is not nearly as impressive as you wish it were. Time to get some new skills in life. Good thing the military might actually offer you training for a skill more useful than just being sent out as the landlord's serf/knight whenever he felt perturbed by every other Mid-East barbarian.
In fact one could argue that the constitutional purpose of the second amendment would be best served by requiring all citizens take a course of military training, after which, Swiss style, they are to be provided with arms and ammunition by the state, which they be required to keep in good order, and be required to train with them at regular intervals.
In the meantime, one could regulate all non-military arms as seems prudent.
This is one way to have ones cake and eat it too.
The presidents body guards have no right or need to be better armed than me.
Yes, they do. Their job is more important than yours. And the president is more important than you and whichever hill there or here you'd like to fight and die on... pending that call to 9/11 and the arrival of the cops.
Just face it, you're not the president. You are a citizen, like the thousands of others who die every year by guns (in their own hand or others') and your death will be no more notable than yours. Sorry to break the news to you, but the word "assassination" would not apply if you were unfortunate enough to be felled. Just like it isn't when all the other Americans die.
Stop pretending that the country won't go on without you or your guns. It's a self-aggrandizing selfish bullshit attitude that lets you feel you can get off the hook for your callous disregard in the face of every other gun violence victim and their loved ones who have to grieve those deaths. You don't care about them and you're the one who's too much of a coward to admit THAT.
South American complaints about the US are entirely self-serving nonsense meant to distract their people from the misbehavior of their leaders, and also, significantly, to give both leaders and led a way to avoid facing their own inadequacy.
If you want to take away my rights to own or purchase guns then I have a right to challenge this action in court. A foundational principle of this country is the right to be judged by a jury of our peers. Due process isn't a problem to be eliminated. It is one of the principles that makes this country special and better.
FINE.
But stop pretending that the 2nd amendment is an unlimited right.
It's not. Just like all the others are not, either.
Hey ballboy, get a new script.
Go come up with your own, peanut gallery resident Jon Ericson. No one's impressed by your cartoon yipping.
"But stop pretending that the 2nd amendment is an unlimited right."
Knocking down straw men. Again.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा