AOSHQDD- A look at the upcoming Senate races

After two back-to-back cycles of disappointment, I'll admit I'm feeling a bit disillusioned. Technically 2014 should give us a lot of hope, with a lot of easily winnable races up for grabs. So let's take a look.

ussenate2014

So far, so good.
Republicans have two very, very winnable races in Alaska and Montana, with incumbents Begich and Baucus sweating bullets. In the event former governor Schweitzer decides to primary Baucus, that race will become a tough get, but for now Baucus' scandals and popularity nosedive puts him in a far, far more vulnerable position than Tester was last November. Senator Begich had the 6-year gig of occupying an Alaskan Senate seat he won by beating (barely) a man who loved internet tubes marred in a scandal. Up for re-election in a midterm, and with several strong Republican options on the table, he isn't likely to survive.

Other potential gets are in Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Dakota, seats currently held by Pryor, Landrieu and Johnson who each enjoyed comfortable re-election in 2008 but with health care votes under their belt and strong contenders in each of their states, not to mention the shifting tide of red over blue in each of them, none of them will enjoy the same trip next November.

The seat vacated by Jay Rockefeller in West Virginia is now Capito's to lose, and lose she may if there is a contentious primary, the sky is blue, and West Virginia Democrats shoot a target in a commercial. A toss-up for now.

North Carolina positions itself nicely as the sixth major pickup opportunity for the GOP, with Hagan up for re-election, sans Lizzy Dole as her opponent, and Obama at the top of the ticket. The Tar Heel state was one of the few to switch back to red in the Presidential race despite turnout nearly matching 2008. Next years' electorate will likely mimic something akin to 2002/2006/2010 more than that. With state-level gains by the Republicans continuing last November, the GOP needs to consolidate behind a candidate quickly but has a very good chance at snagging and restoring the Senate delegation to all-red.

Lastly we have the seat vacated by John Kerry and open for a special election, which means Scott Brown has a second chance at life. In an off-year race, Republicans stand some sort of shot, and as Brown has proved, special elections boost that further. With positive ratings, solid name recognition and no clear Democratic challenger, he has an excellent chance to win, and taunt Warren as a result.

Taking all this into account, I can see a 2-3 seat gain for the Republicans.

Why so low when there are eight potential gets?

GOP failures

Here's why.

These are all the races that were gimmies/near-gimmies for us in the last two elections. Races we blew either due to the sheer stupidity/madness of our candidate or their inability to campaign effectively in states that went to Romney by double-digits.

Never, ever, ever, ever, ever underestimate the power of stupid.

Posted by: CAC at 11:31 AM



Comments

1 You forgot to mention Al Frankenstein in MN. He'll be gone.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at January 19, 2013 12:02 PM (n8LUb)

2 Ehh, Baucus isn't that vulnerable. He'll pull it together...unless he votes for gun control or something.

Posted by: Jeanne of the North at January 19, 2013 12:02 PM (7Cvas)

3 Not necessarily OT since it's about elections but reposting from the last thread:

Dig this priceless nugget of stupidity from Allahpundit, regarding Rand Paul striking back at Crispy Creeem:


"To repeat a point made recently, the lesson of nominating McCain and Romney is that the national Republican primary electorate is way bigger than the universe of grassroots conservatives. Christie could lose every last tea-party vote and conceivably still squeak through to some sort of Romney-esque victory over a divided conservative field. (Then again, if it were that easy, why didn’t Giuliani win in 2008?) But I still think he’d be better off hooking up with Bloomberg and running a serious third-party campaign. For better or worse, after all the betrayals of conservatives lately, that’s his brand now. If he had a few hundred million from Bloomy to jump-start him and some serious media buzz about being the first credible independent candidate since Perot, who knows what he could do?

With people like this on our side, is it any wonder we haven't lost elections by even wider margins. Tepid Air is Teh Stoopid.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 19, 2013 12:03 PM (XkWWK)

4 Who will run against Stuart Smalley? He's not going anywhere.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 19, 2013 12:03 PM (Lxw+T)

5 Franken will likely survive, as will Shaheen.
If those races come into view, it will take a LOT of hard work by the crazies, lazies, and teh stupids to stop us from getting the Senate, but never underestimate them.

Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 12:03 PM (aYKjq)

6 No offense, but I no longer give a shit. Fuck em, I hope the Democrats win every fucking one of them. As long as Bitch McConnell and John Bohner are in charge none of the shit matters.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at January 19, 2013 12:03 PM (++kZl)

7 Or rather, Baucus *would* be vulnerable if we had a fucking CANDIDATE to run against him.

The bench here is not deep.

Posted by: Jeanne of the North at January 19, 2013 12:04 PM (7Cvas)

8 Damn! Did it again. Meant to write, "it's a wonder" not "is it any wonder."

I'm tired.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 19, 2013 12:05 PM (XkWWK)

9 4 Who will run against Stuart Smalley? He's not going anywhere.

Tim Pawlenty. He was actually pretty popular across the state here.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at January 19, 2013 12:06 PM (n8LUb)

10 Never, ever, ever, ever, ever underestimate the power of stupid.

Posted by: CAC at 11:31 AM

This is exactly why a GOP majority is of little value.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 12:06 PM (tBnjP)

11 If Baucus retires, it's Schweitzer's race to lose (if he enters the ring).

Just want to mention that.

Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 12:07 PM (aYKjq)

12 Tim Pawlenty. He was actually pretty popular across the state here.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at January 19, 2013 12:06 PM (n8LUb)
Pawlenty could possibly make it a race, especially since it's a mid-term electorate.

Then again, Governor Dayton.

Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 12:08 PM (aYKjq)

13 Remember, Frankenstein rode rode Obama's coat tails to a 350 vote win. You think he'll have that benefit in 2014? No way. Obama will be radioactive by then.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at January 19, 2013 12:09 PM (n8LUb)

14 Tim Pawlenty. He was actually pretty popular across the state here.

Ed Morrissey concurs. Therefore it will not happen.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 19, 2013 12:09 PM (Lxw+T)

15 No offense, but I no longer give a shit. Fuck em, I hope the Democrats win every fucking one of them. As long as Bitch McConnell and John Bohner are in charge none of the shit matters.
Posted by: Mr. Pink at January 19, 2013 12:03 PM (++kZl)


Hey buck up there: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.” WSC

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 19, 2013 12:09 PM (9Bj8R)

16 I don't look at parties any more. I look at ideology. You have the so-called "progressives" who seek to turn us into some sort of statist utopia, and you have those who profit from it who go along with it, but only because they are not in solid blue states and have to appear to appease the base in order to get elected. They could care fuck-all what happens to the nation so long as they get theirs and get invited to all the cool cocktail parties.

Shorter version, you are either for America as founded (small government, individual liberty, pro-growth economics) or are in favor of tyranny.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 19, 2013 12:11 PM (XkWWK)

17 Hey buck up there: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.” WSC
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 19, 2013 12:09 PM (9Bj8R)

Well when the failure is 75% due to the fact your own team is fucking you in the ass why even play?

Posted by: Mr. Pink at January 19, 2013 12:12 PM (++kZl)

18 No way. Obama will be radioactive by then.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at January 19, 2013 12:09 PM (n8LUb)
From the 2010 results, we were saying that about 2012.
Then we blew North Dakota Indiana Missouri Montana and the O-electorate/bad campaigning by Thompson cost us that state too.

Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 12:12 PM (aYKjq)

19 Obama will be radioactive by then.

I think that's correct, although I thought Romney would win, so there's that. Maybe we'll see a reprise of the SNL skit with a huge Jimmy Carter after a nooklear accident.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:13 PM (6TB1Z)

20 It's Minnesota, fellas. They lead the way in vote fraud and left-wing loons. Gawd luv Pawlenty but he won't win, and Frankenstein has been cagey and circumspect in office compared to what he could have been. He hasn't been hogging the limelight to polarize voters.

Minnesota is blue and will stay blue for years.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 19, 2013 12:13 PM (Lxw+T)

21 17 Hey buck up there: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.” WSC
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 19, 2013 12:09 PM (9Bj8R)

Well when the failure is 75% due to the fact your own team is fucking you in the ass why even play?
Posted by: Mr. Pink at January 19, 2013 12:12 PM (++kZl)


It's no longer pre-steroid-era baseball; it's some combination of professional wrestling and Rollerball.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 19, 2013 12:14 PM (XkWWK)

22 Then again, the SUPERAWESOMEPAULWELLSTONEMEMORIALTAKE-METAKE-MEBONANZA cost the D's Minnesota in 2002.
So who knows.

Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 12:15 PM (aYKjq)

23 Then we blew North Dakota Indiana Missouri Montana and the O-electorate/bad campaigning by Thompson cost us that state too.

True, if we put forward a bunch of politically clueless halfwits again, that could happen. Because thinking strategically is for quisling RINOs.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:16 PM (6TB1Z)

24 31 seconds and two time outs? Game is tied? Let's just kneel on the ball and see what happens

Posted by: John Elway and the GOP at January 19, 2013 12:17 PM (fyQQl)

25 We have no clue what the electoral environment will be in 2014 or 2016.

2012 showed us that 2010 predicted ass, monkey ass.

Fuck the GOP.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 12:18 PM (tBnjP)

26 It does not matter as our polling process has lost its credibility and is now corrupt. The game is rigged in the leftards favor at the ballot box as they are the ones who count the votes. There's no integrity left in the system.

We're screwed until it is fixed.

Posted by: TexBob at January 19, 2013 12:18 PM (6S4Ai)

27 Obama is radioactive already, poisoning the entire body politic. Like radioactive poison, the symptoms and death take a while to show up. Right now we're just beginning to suspect we are losing our hair. The diarrhea and vomiting might not hit until 2016 or later.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 19, 2013 12:18 PM (Lxw+T)

28 I think 25 comments might be to early to off topic, so I'll wait to post my Game day menu

Posted by: spypeach at January 19, 2013 12:18 PM (pwTow)

29
2012 showed us that 2010 predicted ass, monkey ass.


Seems to me that prediction was crystal. We got nothing but monkey ass last November.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 19, 2013 12:20 PM (Lxw+T)

30 "Shorter version, you are either for America as founded (small
government, individual liberty, pro-growth economics) or are in favor of
tyranny."

It isn't just conservatives who will be looking at ideology. The Democrats will be looking at the ideology of our candidates, to find the ones who are both deeply conservative, and easily beatable. The Todd Akin strategy worked well in Missouri, so expect it to be repeated everywhere.

For me, if it's a choice between a more moderate candidate who's electable, and a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who's unacceptable to much of the electorate, I'll take the moderate. Because, frankly, having one of our own guys fuck us up the ass with Vasoline is better than having an Obamatron fuck us with the barbed cock of Satan.


Posted by: Brown Line at January 19, 2013 12:21 PM (dKXn1)

31 Obama is radioactive already, poisoning the entire body politic.

Again, I think this is correct, and that his popularity will do a Wiley Coyote running off a cliff. He'll look okay for a while and then sayonara.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:21 PM (6TB1Z)

32 I am done wishing my life away, just to be disappointed post election day.

In the meantime, I will just have to bug the shit out of my Rep.

Posted by: sTevo at January 19, 2013 12:22 PM (VMcEw)

33 Akin should have been dragged off to Antarctica until November 8th.

Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 12:22 PM (aYKjq)

34 BALTIMORE – Earl Weaver, the fiery Hall of Fame manager who won 1,480 games with the Baltimore Orioles seemingly was engaged in nearly as many arguments with umpires, has died. He was 82.
Dick Gordon, Weaver's marketing agent, said Saturday that Weaver died while on a Caribbean cruise sponsored by the Orioles. Gordon said Weaver's wife told him that Weaver went back to his cabin after dinner and began choking between 10:30 and 11 Friday night. Gordon said a cause of death has not been determined.
The Duke of Earl, as he was affectionately known in Baltimore, took the Orioles into the World Series four times over 17 seasons but won only one title, in 1970. His .583 winning percentage ranks fifth among managers who served 10 or more seasons in the 20th century.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 19, 2013 12:23 PM (9Bj8R)

35 Because, frankly, having one of our own guys fuck us up the ass with Vasoline is better than having an Obamatron fuck us with the barbed cock of Satan.


Posted by: Brown Line at January 19, 2013 12:21 PM (dKXn1)

It isn't better. It is just as bad.

The idea it is better is what got us to where we are today.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 12:24 PM (tBnjP)

36 33
Akin should have been dragged off to Antarctica until November 8th.


And he's still sending me emails asking for money. I got on his list because I left him an email telling him to withdraw because he was an idiot. Apparently separating his email lists into "likes you" and "hates your stinking guts" is to difficult for him.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:24 PM (6TB1Z)

37 No mention of Amnesty?

Maybe the Dems forgot.

Elections will become pointless from a Conservative perspective. Republicans will do fine.

Posted by: nip at January 19, 2013 12:24 PM (11Tdq)

38
A lot can happen between now and November 2014.

The Dems lost both houses of congress back in 1994...because of the threat of HillaryCare and the Gun Ban that Clinton did sign into law.

Now, we have ZeroCare® coming into effect, and the threat of new Gun Bans.
But the population is stupider now, than it was in 1994.

These are the ones that the Dems have been waiting for.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 12:26 PM (fH4X9)

39 Please GOD relieve us of the ****stain named cornyn.

But,
Your will be done.

Posted by: Blacksmith8 at January 19, 2013 12:27 PM (Yzu6e)

40 These are the ones that the Dems have been waiting for.

Well, them and the 20 million new dependents Obama wants to add to the electorate. This is my real worry. Apparently I don't have a heart.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:27 PM (6TB1Z)

41 With people like this on our side, is it any wonder we haven't lost elections by even wider margins. Tepid Air is Teh Stoopid.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 19, 2013 12:03 PM (XkWWK)


I've never considered AllahPander as being on our side.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 12:28 PM (rXEoZ)

42 CAC God bless you for wargaming this.
I'm not ready yet thus you're spared my drivel this time.

regards,
sven

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 12:29 PM (LRFds)

43 Speaking of stupid, you left out the part about stupid conservative voters. How else do you explain MO, IN, MT, and ND sticking with democrats for Senate last November. Yeah, some of the Republican candidates were dumb but NONE of them had voted for or would have voted for Obamacare. None had voted for or would have voted for liberal SC justices.

Posted by: ilrndude at January 19, 2013 12:31 PM (aUnng)

44 The Landrieu's are Louisiana royalty. Mary will be our Senator until she dies or resigns.

Posted by: Colonel Pooteh at January 19, 2013 12:31 PM (l1Jnv)

45 This is like predicting the 2014 Super Bowl winner right now.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 19, 2013 12:32 PM (QLuGB)

46 Oh, two shits. I'll vote on Election Day but no way am I wishing and hoping for squat. That has bitten me in the ass too much lately.

Posted by: NCKate at January 19, 2013 12:32 PM (Pf/z7)

47 The Dems lost the House and Senate in 1994 and got them back in 2006.

In that time span the Federal Government grew and grew.

When the Dems got the H and S back they turned the dial to 11 and tossed in the Ebola virus.

But, somehow a GOP majority is going to make things all better.

JFC, what hopeless stupidity is this!

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 12:34 PM (tBnjP)

48 Scotty Centerfold has been sucking Lurch's cock long enough that his DNA is probably indistinguishable from Report for Doody's. Even if he's elected, I wouldn't trust that egotistical pile of RINO shit further than I could kick him.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 12:34 PM (rXEoZ)

49 Fuck it all. Let it burn.

Posted by: Ernie McCracken at January 19, 2013 12:34 PM (ZETiK)

50 OT: the Drudge link to the dead Algerian hostages makes it sound as if the Algerians never really considered any strategy other than "kill 'em all, let God sort then out". With their history, I suppose I might feel the same.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:35 PM (6TB1Z)

51 Most R senators are just high priced whores. Just look at how they voted on the fiscal cliff. I can't wait to contribute and work for whoever primaries Cornyn. Blook sucking lawyers are all the same.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 12:35 PM (OQpzc)

52 35Because, frankly, having one of our own guys fuck us up the ass with Vasoline is better than having an Obamatron fuck us with the barbed cock of Satan.


Posted by: Brown Line at January 19, 2013 12:21 PM (dKXn1)

It isn't better. It is just as bad.

The idea it is better is what got us to where we are today.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 12:24 PM (tBnjP)Right on, eman. Out with Boner and McConnell and the rest of the whiners, criers. I've said it once and I'll say it again. Pelosi and Reid are absolute wretches. But their ability to tow their party line and crack the whip cannot be underestimated- and lets be honest, we have to give them points for corraling their herd of cats. If our side had a tenth of those skills, then perhaps the barbed cock of satan wouldn't be midstroke in America's ass. But here we are. Until the repubs find their nutsack, nay recover it from Madame Pelosi's House of Ill Repute, then we're doomed. Plant a Victory Garden, stock up on ammo and learn a skill like making beer. At least you'll have that when the wheels come off.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 12:36 PM (0SmH0)

53 2 years out?

Might as well try to forecast whether it's going to be raining on election day.

Posted by: Andy at January 19, 2013 12:36 PM (OZPoa)

54 Mr. pink and eman and other like minded folks are right. I am concentrating on local and statewide (Texas) races in preparation for the inevitable separation .

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 19, 2013 12:37 PM (R8hU8)

55 Odds on one of our guys saying God intended rapes and he has a way of getting rid of it.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at January 19, 2013 12:37 PM (DGIjM)

56 41...I've never considered AllahPander as being on our side.

Having the Dems in power is 'good for business'...if you're a conservative pundit.

Which is why I have found myself looking sideways at some of the things that people like Rush, Beck, TepidAir, and Fox...who weren't really all that helpful in defeating King Clusterfuck.

Remember how they were saying "He's toast"...and "Anyone can beat him"?
What bullshit that was.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 12:37 PM (fH4X9)

57 Algerians never really considered any strategy other than "kill 'em all, let God sort then out". With their history, I suppose I might feel the same.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:35 PM (6TB1Z)

The didn't. They cared about getting the oil back in production. BP will just hire new people. An no one will give a shit two weeks from now.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 12:37 PM (OQpzc)

58 Ahahahahahahhahahhahhahha... GOP should pick up three or four seats? That means they'll lose 8, even if that's mathematically impossible...

Posted by: M. Murcek at January 19, 2013 12:37 PM (GJUgF)

59 OT? And in Egypt - the first 'Islamic cafe'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21034378

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 19, 2013 12:38 PM (QLuGB)

60 40 These are the ones that the Dems have been waiting for.
Well, them and the 20 million new dependents Obama wants to add to the electorate. This is my real worry. Apparently I don't have a heart.

----------

So then I guess Rubio is not on your list of contenders, pep?

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 12:40 PM (fH4X9)

61 Algerians never really considered any strategy other than "kill 'em all, let God sort then out". With their history, I suppose I might feel the same.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:35 PM (6TB1Z)

The didn't. They cared about getting the oil back in production. BP will just hire new people. An no one will give a shit two weeks from now.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 12:37 PM (OQpzc)

It's nasty, but effective.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 12:40 PM (tBnjP)

62
South Dakota has the sympathy factor going. No one wants to attack Tim Johnson, since he's physically and mentally too far gone.

Unfortunately, that leaves us with a United States Senator who's physically and mentally too far gone.

Posted by: Ted K. at January 19, 2013 12:41 PM (knRXi)

63 Posted by: M. Murcek at January 19, 2013 12:37 PM (GJUgF)

You're catching on there, comrade. NEVER underestimate the ability of the Republican Party to screw up, renege on campaign promises, and retain the anointed leadership in positions of power regardless of results.

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 12:41 PM (Cnqmv)

64 This is like predicting the 2014 Super Bowl winner right now.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 19, 2013 12:32 PM (QLuGB)

Well I garunfuckintee you it ain't gonna be the NY Jets!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 19, 2013 12:41 PM (9Bj8R)

65 Overall a cogent and reasonable main blog post, but somehow the elephants in the room were missed or glossed over.

The primary reason why the GOP always -- always! -- underperforms in Senate contests is just that, the primaries. Whenever there is a contested GOP primary a small but material percentage of the primary voters who didn't get the candidate they wanted will stay home and not vote in the general election. To "prove their point." Or to "send their messages." Or they vote for the "Libertarian" candidate. Or they cast "protest votes" for the Democrat. Seriously. The reasons for all that could fill up an entire blog, but suffice it to say mostly it's a function of demographics.

Well, many Senate contests are close. If, e.g., 50,000 conservatives petulantly stay home and don't vote in the general, because their candidate didn't win the primary, and if the Democrat wins the general by 30,000 votes, voila!, there you go. And that sort of thing happens one or two times virtually in every Senate election cycle, going back decades.

Then of course with primaries, especially in recent years, there are risks of getting completely unelectable general election candidates. Angle. Buck. O'Donnell. Akin. Mourdock. Harris. McCollum. Etc.

The GOP will underperform for the Senate in '14. Whatever gain they should post they'll post a much lesser gain or even no gain at all (and not inconceivably a net loss). The same way, and for the same primary reasons (pun intended), as they grossly underperformed in '12, '10, '08, '06, '04, '02, '00, '98, '96, and for many decades prior. When your putative primary "base" is saddled with horrible demographics the as a political party you're simply going to suffer. QED.

Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at January 19, 2013 12:42 PM (r2PLg)

66 And, seriously, fuck Scott Brown. Too much asshole, leftist lawyer in that back stabbing pos.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 12:42 PM (OQpzc)

67 that leaves us with a United States Senator who's physically and mentally too far gone.
Posted by: Ted K. at January 19, 2013 12:41 PM (knRXi)

"a"? More like most of them

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 19, 2013 12:42 PM (9Bj8R)

68 That map would look a lot better with little target symbols on it.

Posted by: Marmo at January 19, 2013 12:43 PM (pcgW1)

69 Unfortunately, that leaves us with a United States Senator who's physically and mentally too far gone.

Posted by: Ted K. at January 19, 2013 12:41 PM (knRXi)

Thing is Johnson is just a case where it is impossible to deny, but the saddest part is that there are so many others that are undiagnosed, but clinically insane or incompetent.

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 12:44 PM (Cnqmv)

70 This is like predicting the 2014 Super Bowl winner right now.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 19, 2013 12:32 PM (QLuGB)



Well I garunfuckintee you it ain't gonna be the NY Jets!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 19, 2013 12:41 PM (9Bj8R)
cleveland browns
huh did i hear a laugh ?
just.you.wait.and.see!


Posted by: ette at January 19, 2013 12:44 PM (nqBYe)

71 The best thing the GOP could do for this country is disband and let its fragments reform into new parties.

One of those new parties will have what it takes to construct a new republic.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 12:44 PM (tBnjP)

72 I see on Drudge that Hillary is above the header, with her long, gray locks flowing. Tina Fey glasses on, looking very Presidential -escuse- Official- I assume telling us how our fellow citizens were smote by the Algerian terrorists. Yet, I am struck by the thought of- damn, this lady bounced back rather quickly after her brush with the Great Beyond. AFter all, she had a clot that coulnd't be removed...in her head...right? And fainting spells? I dunno. Just an observation. Perhaps the photo is pre- hospital visit.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 12:44 PM (0SmH0)

73
Most R senators are just high priced whores.

Ahem. With us at least you get something in return for your money.

Posted by: High Priced Whores at January 19, 2013 12:44 PM (0WLla)

74 To all Republicans running for office:

1. When asked about abortion, DON'T SAY ANYTHING.

2. The Media is NOT your friend, and they will NEVER BE your friend. Their one objective is to DESTROY you. That is the sole purpose of their every encounter with you, the reason behind every question they ask.

Write these things down and memorize them.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 19, 2013 12:45 PM (xjpRj)

75 Pelosi and Reid are absolute wretches. But their ability to tow their
party line and crack the whip cannot be underestimated- and lets be
honest, we have to give them points for corraling their herd of cats. If
our side had a tenth of those skills, then perhaps the barbed cock of
satan wouldn't be midstroke in America's ass.[/i}



I blame Boehner far more for this than McConnell because the orange-skinned sot has a fucking majority to work with and doesn't do jackshit. But don't worry; the whining fuck has Gabe blaming it all on "teh extreme right" instead of the nicotine slave's lack of leadership and sheer laziness.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 12:46 PM (rXEoZ)

76 So then I guess Rubio is not on your list of contenders, pep?

I've often commented here that I don't like presidential candidates who have never accomplished anything but getting elected and giving speeches, regardless of how full of red meat the speeches are. Rubio is a prime example, as is Cruz. I'm not saying they're bad people, or that they won't be my choice later, but neither has been around long enough for me to even consider them yet. Going to law school, even Harvard Law, isn't enough for me. Furthermore, Rubio's amnesty lite tells me that he's not the person lots of folks around here seem to think he is.

I freely admit I could be wrong about him, but we won't know for awhile. I suppose that for some, getting crushes on unknowns adds a certain frisson to politics, but that's not my style. I'm more, shall I say, conservative.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:48 PM (6TB1Z)

77 Beckoning Chasm, *sigh*

It seems when it comes to abortion the GOP has adopted the Jon Cary solution. Personally deep inside the echo chamber of a brain, against. But publicly must sound all squishy and being supporting.

The lukewarm approach never works. Stand as a goat or stand as an ewe.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 19, 2013 12:48 PM (QLuGB)

78
Write these things down and memorize them.

Your complicated thinky thoughts hurt myskull parts.

Posted by: Republican running for office at January 19, 2013 12:48 PM (0WLla)

79 Every time a GOP person goes on Meet the Press we get a slap in the face and urine squirting into our cornflakes.

Just by their going on the show.

Same for every other MFM venue.



Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 12:49 PM (tBnjP)

80 On second thought,

The fact that people are working on this election shit now is fucking insulting.

Election as industry. Politics as way of life.

Posted by: nip at January 19, 2013 12:49 PM (11Tdq)

81
76

I've often commented here that I don't like presidential candidates who have never accomplished anything but getting elected and giving speeches, regardless of how full of red meat the speeches are.

Pep- you've nailed it. This is one of the biggest problems I have with most candidates as well. Professional policians- a creature that was never intended to be allowed to spawn, thrive and grow in our Republic.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 12:50 PM (0SmH0)

82 There's a pretty clear Democrat thats being lined up in MA to run against Scott Brown (who still hasn't declared his candidacy), Ed Markey.

Posted by: ChrisValentine at January 19, 2013 12:50 PM (ht3c8)

83 Election as industry. Politics as way of life.

True, but all the same, I'd rather win.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:51 PM (6TB1Z)

84 nip, welcome to the party
http://annapuna.blogspot.com/2007/05/247-election-cycle.html

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 19, 2013 12:51 PM (QLuGB)

85 Write these things down and memorize them.


Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 19, 2013 12:45 PM (xjpRj)

3. Memorize basic talking points and practice how to deftly respond by answering any question with a response that you want to give, not necessarily answer the question posed.
4. Never give an interview with anyone where you don't have your own videographer recoding every second of interaction on- and off-set.

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 12:51 PM (Cnqmv)

86 The Rs were given a mandate in 2010.

And all they did was go along and get along with the bankrupting of America. That is why people stayed home in 2012. If they wanted to win, maybe they should have fought a bit for the people who put them there. Who trusts them anymore? What have they done to earn it?

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 12:52 PM (OQpzc)

87 71 The best thing the GOP could do for this country is disband and let its fragments reform into new parties.
One of those new parties will have what it takes to construct a new republic.


While the prospect of this is nice to think about...it would only ensure the successes of the Dems.

The Dem-party used to be the more conservative of the two parties.
But the far left gradually took it over.

Conservatives have gradually been taking over the Rep-party.
Look at all the red states that used to be dark blue.
I think we need to keep supporting this transformation...and get some new leadership in the Rep-party, instead of the spineless old guard that is still clinging to power.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 12:52 PM (fH4X9)

88 Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:48 PM (6TB1Z)

One word: "Term Limits!"



Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 12:53 PM (Cnqmv)

89 I think Allen West would make a fine President.

He has exactly what the Office needs.

Talk about his not having accomplished enough is foolish.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 12:53 PM (tBnjP)

90 Sure, lots of seats are winnable, but since the Repubs are the Stupid Party™, we'll end up nominating knuckleheads who are fascinated by rape and the mysterious functions of lady parts... Morons.

Posted by: GuyfromNH at January 19, 2013 12:54 PM (YOe1f)

91 74 Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Posted by: JJ Stone at January 19, 2013 12:54 PM (1Iqf9)

92 76

I've often commented here that I don't
like presidential candidates who have never accomplished anything but
getting elected and giving speeches, regardless of how full of red meat
the speeches are.

Pep- you've nailed it. This is one of the
biggest problems I have with most candidates as well. Professional
policians- a creature that was never intended to be allowed to spawn,
thrive and grow in our Republic.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 12:50 PM (0SmH0)


Unfortunately there's a JEF in the White House for 8 years that shits all over this way of thinking; with which I agree btw.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 12:55 PM (rXEoZ)

93
2-3 seats?



This changes everything.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 12:55 PM (jTKU5)

94 Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 12:52 PM (OQpzc)


Try to think of just one or two important conservative issues that the Republican Party has truly supported, presented honestly in public, followed through on, and delivered on (even if it got stopped in the Senate).


If that exercise doesn't calibrate the RINOs for you nothing will.

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 12:56 PM (Cnqmv)

95
90Sure, lots of seats are winnable, but since the Repubs are the Stupid Party™, we'll end up nominating knuckleheads who are fascinated by rape and the mysterious functions of lady parts... Morons.

Guy- great point. Maybe it was good that the guys like Akin, who would be so foolish as to give an answer to such a clearly loaded question, lost the race. Perhaps he could have done greater damage as a senator. I don't know. Perhaps that is just sour grapes on my part; surely the troll that beat him is far worse than Akin's buffoonery.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 12:56 PM (0SmH0)

96 Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 12:52 PM (fH4X9)

Seriously?

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 12:56 PM (tBnjP)

97 "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at January 19, 2013 12:56 PM (azHfB)

98 Let's ask them first about abortion.

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 19, 2013 12:58 PM (MPjT8)

99 Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 12:53 PM (tBnjP)


Al-AnWest/Cotton 2014.

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 12:58 PM (Cnqmv)

100 Taking into account the fact that the GOP will be involved, somebody will say something stupid about rape, somebody will say something technically racist (even if everyone uses the phrase)...ok, so I see a 2-3 seat loss.

Posted by: Aaron at January 19, 2013 12:58 PM (Tlix5)

101 Try to think of just one or two important conservative issues that the
Republican Party has truly supported, presented honestly in public,
followed through on, and delivered on (even if it got stopped in the
Senate).


Fighting gun control
A real budget out of the house it controls

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:59 PM (6TB1Z)

102
CAC!
Glad so see you're getting coherant again. I was worried we had lost you for a while there.

I kinda agree that we need to see how 2013 rolls out to guess what 2014 is going to look like. This could be some sort of repeat of 2006 whereby people do tire of giving the party in power (ish) a second chance and turn on them. Or King Clusterfuck/Race card may poison the well so completely that people are afraid to vote R ever ever again (lest we..erg...give them freedom or something.)

Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 12:59 PM (GaqMa)

103 If that exercise doesn't calibrate the RINOs for you nothing will.


Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 12:56 PM (Cnqmv)


I usually can't stand to listen to that blowhard Hugh Hewitt but he was spot on following the 2010 elections when he was hectoring the House Repubs for not doing what they had a clear mandate to do. Everything was "trust us, we'll get it done later" which we're still waiting for.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 12:59 PM (rXEoZ)

104 Let's ask them first about abortion.

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 19, 2013 12:58 PM (MPjT

Actually, we should ask our own candidates that question in primaries, and if they don't have a bullet-proof response they should be eliminated immediately. The abortion albatross will be hung around R candidates until someone frames a reasonable response to it.

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 01:02 PM (Cnqmv)

105 96 Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 12:52 PM (fH4X9)
Seriously?

---------

Yes, eman....the Dem party used to be the more conservative party.
JFK wouldn't be able to get elected today, as a Dem.

It was the DNC convention in 1968 that was stormed by the hippies, protesting the Dems.
And now...the hippies have taken over the Dem party.


Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 01:03 PM (fH4X9)

106 Actually, we should ask our own candidates that question in primaries, and if they don't have a bullet-proof response they should be eliminated immediately. The abortion albatross will be hung around R candidates until someone frames a reasonable response to it.
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 01:02 PM (Cnqmv)
I think there are about 3 different "reasonable responses" floating around the HQ these days.AllenG has his "it's the economy, stupid" response. Ace goes for the "meh, I'm pro-life anyway" response, and I roll out the deflection on why we aren't improving our rape response (thus rending the abortion/rape conflagration significantly more moot.)The problem is, for some reason, our candidates don't read this blog.

Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 01:04 PM (GaqMa)

107 Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:59 PM (6TB1Z)

Maybe I should have made that three.

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 01:05 PM (Cnqmv)

108
It was the DNC convention in 1968 that was stormed by the hippies, protesting the Dems.
And now...the hippies have taken over the Dem party

It always comes back to the dirty hippies. And the Commies- Coulter was right about them as well. Morons should read Richard Pipes' Concise History of the Russian Revolution to see the progs playbook. All this has been done before, and will be done again. Wish more people could see that.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 01:05 PM (0SmH0)

109 Yes, eman....the Dem party used to be the more conservative party.
JFK wouldn't be able to get elected today, as a Dem.

It was the DNC convention in 1968 that was stormed by the hippies, protesting the Dems.
And now...the hippies have taken over the Dem party.


Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 01:03 PM (fH4X9)


The Democrats used to be a more conservative party, but were never the more conservative party compared to the GOP.

The fact the Democrats have become defacto Communists and the GOP has become their enablers is sure and certain proof that the GOP needs to be dissolved and replaced with a true alternative to what the Democrats and GOP offer today.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:07 PM (tBnjP)

110 The problem is, for some reason, our candidates don't read this blog.

Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 01:04 PM (GaqMa)


I consistently have found more reasoned, intelligent positions and discussions on this blog concerning Republican and Conservative issues than I have ever heard from the entire Republican establishment.

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 01:07 PM (Cnqmv)

111 Over 100 comments, so I'm going OT.

Did ya catch Guiliani on FNC saying that nobody needs a "military-style assault rifle"?

On the other hand, they had Gowdy on saying there are some people he doesn't want to see with so much as a plastic knife. Law abiding citizens, such as AR-15 owner Lindsey Graham, however, causes him no concern whatsoever.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:08 PM (piMMO)

112 The problem is, for some reason, our candidates don't read this blog.

Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 01:04 PM (GaqMa)


The problem is also that we get a bunch of Arlen Specters, Charlie Crists, Dick Lugars and Mike Castles who get too fucking comfortable in office so, when they get rolled in a primary, get all butthurt and refuse to support the candidate who defeated them and have Rove playing cuddle games with them to soothe their fragile egos.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 01:08 PM (rXEoZ)

113 Actually, we should ask our own candidates that question in primaries,
and if they don't have a bullet-proof response they should be eliminated
immediately.


But then we'd have people complaining that the GOP bigwigs were forcing candidates down our throats.

The real world is always more difficult to deal with than the online one.

I agree with your idea, though. If you can't pass a simple competence test, we don't want you using up one of our slots. The opportunity cost is too high.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:09 PM (6TB1Z)

114 that is just sour grapes on my part; surely the troll that beat him is far worse than Akin's buffoonery.
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 12:56 PM (0SmH0)

Yep. People who went for a lib dem because an R mouthed off on something that had no chance of ever being translated into law are too stupid to be allowed to vote anyway. May they get exactly what they voted for.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 01:10 PM (OQpzc)

115 NDH, Guiliani is an NE RINO big government liberal at heart, albeit with some good qualities.

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 01:10 PM (Cnqmv)

116 I'm with Pep re Rubio.

He's my Senator, but I'm not completely sold on him and never have been. He's good, but there are far better potential candidates out there, Rand amongst them. Hell, Gowdy, too.

As for all the supposed influence he wields over Hispanics.... 2012 anyone?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:10 PM (piMMO)

117 Over 100 comments, so I'm going OT.

Did ya catch Guiliani on FNC saying that nobody needs a "military-style assault rifle"?

On the other hand, they had Gowdy on saying there are some people he doesn't want to see with so much as a plastic knife. Law abiding citizens, such as AR-15 owner Lindsey Graham, however, causes him no concern whatsoever.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:08 PM (piMMO)

Again with the "needs" bullshit.

Fuck you, Rudy.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:11 PM (tBnjP)

118 Baucus seat is winnable in Montana? No way.
Tester just won re-election in 2012 in the state.
Baucus has won his races with close to 60% in the past.
Montana has changed a lot in the last decade, it's not your father's Montana anymore. It's a purple state, that is trending blue.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:11 PM (HDgX3)

119 I consistently have found more reasoned, intelligent positions and discussions on this blog concerning Republican and Conservative issues than I have ever heard from the entire Republican establishment.
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 01:07 PM (Cnqmv)
Don't look at me. I offered to give my fancy edumacation a test run by helping Akin dodge those questions before the primary was even over. (I predicted he'd win the primary solely due to name recognition and District 2 voters who vote heavily in the primaries.)They never responded to my letters. On the flipside he was clearly going to self-destruct even if he had Carl Rove advising him. So bullet dodged. (Although watching that self destruct reminded me why I keep an arms length distance between me and politics.)

Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 01:11 PM (GaqMa)

120 Did ya catch Guiliani on FNC saying that nobody needs a "military-style assault rifle"?

Those northeatern Rs are just what we need. He's pro-choice as well, no?

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 01:11 PM (OQpzc)

121
consistently have found more reasoned, intelligent positions and discussions on this blog concerning Republican and Conservative issues than I have ever heard from the entire Republican establishment.

===
and we have boobies!!

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 19, 2013 01:12 PM (MPjT8)

122 The problem is also that we get a bunch of Arlen Specters, Charlie Crists, Dick Lugars and Mike Castles

*****

Jeez!


Mentioning those names in the same sentence is akin to crossing streams.

It just isn't done.

Hell, why didn't you toss in Snowe and just bring about the SMOD while you were at it?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:12 PM (piMMO)

123
111 - Niedermeyer-
this is what flames me about the libs and members of our own side who say this kind of stupidity. Someone's opinion of need has exactly jack shit to do with my desire. All this talk of needs bullshit is right out of Marx's playbook- "From each according to his ability, to each according to his NEED." Again, Richard Pipe's Concise History of the Russian Revolution. Morons should read it if they aren't very well versed on the particulars of communism and propoganda. When guys like Guiliani go on Fox and spout this clap trap, it gives the libs fodder for their fight. See? Even New York City's finest mayor says you don't need a big, black scary gun!
This is infuriating.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 01:13 PM (0SmH0)

124 Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 01:11 PM (GaqMa)

There is no way that any outsider non-political personage not in the revolving-door beltway food chain could possibly add to the viability of a campaign. Leave it to the professionals like me, and Prince Reject.

Posted by: Karl Rover at January 19, 2013 01:14 PM (Cnqmv)

125 Hell, why didn't you toss in Snowe and just bring about the SMOD while you were at it?

I don't understand what's upsetting you.

Posted by: Lisa Murkowski at January 19, 2013 01:14 PM (6TB1Z)

126 Fuck you, Rudy.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:11 PM (tBnjP)


Rudy, Fat Boy and Client 9: All former federal prosecutors used to being bullies and not particularly conservative. Rudy did a good job of cleaning up the fucking mess that NYC had become under that hapless dickhole Dinkens; but there's no fucking way I'd want him in a national role.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 01:14 PM (rXEoZ)

127 The Tar Heel state was one of the few to switch back to red in the Presidential race despite turnout nearly matching 2008. Next years' electorate will likely mimic something akin to 2002/2006/2010 more than that.

As a North Carolina resident I can tell you the reason for this was massive grass roots activism. If Tom Tillis runs kay dumbshit hagen will be re-elected. NC is a strange state. if the republicans do not court these people properly they will default to the dems. Tillis is establishment and they will say FU Tillis.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:15 PM (l86i3)

128 this is what flames me about the libs and members of our own side who say this kind of stupidity. Someone's opinion of need has exactly jack shit to do with my desire. All this talk of needs bullshit is right out of Marx's playbook- "From each according to his ability, to each according to his NEED." Again, Richard Pipe's Concise History of the Russian Revolution. Morons should read it if they aren't very well versed on the particulars of communism and propoganda. When guys like Guiliani go on Fox and spout this clap trap, it gives the libs fodder for their fight. See? Even New York City's finest mayor says you don't need a big, black scary gun!
This is infuriating.

****

Heh. There were plenty here all behind his 2008 run.

I just couldn't get my head around it.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:15 PM (piMMO)

129 Rudy, Fat Boy and Client 9: All former federal
prosecutors used to being bullies and not particularly conservative.
Rudy did a good job of cleaning up the fucking mess that NYC had become
under that hapless dickhole Dinkens; but there's no fucking way I'd want
him in a national role.


Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 01:14 PM (rXEoZ)

___________________
And the purity tests begin for 2016.....

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:16 PM (HDgX3)

130 I don't understand what's upsetting you.

***

Damn! Completely forgot about the shit that is Murkowski.

Self-preservation, I presume.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:17 PM (piMMO)

131 109...The Democrats used to be a more conservative party, but were never the more conservative party compared to the GOP.

Nixon had the support of the Unions...and gave us the EPA, and massive welfare spending.

Gerald Ford was basically Nixon without the hair.

Reagan was the beginning of the transformation to a more conservative GOP.
But he was also the only president to give Amnesty to millions of illegals.

The fact the Democrats have become defacto Communists and the GOP has become their enablers is sure and certain proof that the GOP needs to be dissolved and replaced with a true alternative to what the Democrats and GOP offer today.

The Commies tried for half a century to be a 'third party' here.
They failed.
That's why they took over the Dem party...from within.

That's what Conservatives need to do with the GOP.
It would take at least a half century for a new "true alternative" conservative party to establish itself to the point of winning national elections.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 01:18 PM (fH4X9)

132 And the purity tests begin for 2016.....


***

Wait, Wait, Wait.

SOME level of purity test is required.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:18 PM (piMMO)

133
@Hrothgar's sock.

Actually we later found out that the campaign was basically staffed by his family, with 0 political advisors. I've now also realized I need to spend more time investigating campaigns during the primaries.

Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 01:18 PM (GaqMa)

134 ___________________
And the purity tests begin for 2016.....
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:16 PM (HDgX3)

There is only one who is pure, she will come from the north riding a Polar Bear named liberty swinging the sword of justice.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:18 PM (l86i3)

135 Rudy, Fat Boy and Client 9: All former federal prosecutors used to being bullies and not particularly conservative. Rudy did a good job of cleaning up the fucking mess that NYC had become under that hapless dickhole Dinkens; but there's no fucking way I'd want him in a national role.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 01:14 PM (rXEoZ)

All lawyers? Go figure.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 01:19 PM (OQpzc)

136 And the purity tests begin for 2016.....
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:16 PM (HDgX3)

There are purity tests that must be passed or you are out, in my opinion.

Second Amendment is one of them.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:19 PM (tBnjP)

137 All lawyers? Go figure.

****

Not all lawyers are bad. Gowdy, for one.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:20 PM (piMMO)

138 There are purity tests that must be passed or you are out, in my opinion.

Second Amendment is one of them.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:19 PM (tBnjP)


The constitution as a guideline is all of it.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:20 PM (l86i3)

139 I'm starting to think we should just give the libs their assault rifle ban. This is starting to turn into the "tax the rich" bullshit. Had we just given them their precious taxes on the rich, Obama and Co. wouldn't have had the issue to campaign on in 2012. The GOP caved anyway. Would have been a lot better had they caved 2 years earlier. Same with this. Might as well cave in now and not let the issue drag on for another 6 months until which time you know the cave will happen.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:20 PM (HDgX3)

140 There is only one who is pure, she will come from the north riding a Polar Bear named liberty swinging the sword of justice.

I have no idea what this means, but I like it.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:21 PM (6TB1Z)

141 I'm starting to think we should just give the libs their assault rifle ban.

And turn me into a criminal, thanks a lot.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:21 PM (l86i3)

142 Sign Rand's "Stop the Power Grab" fax bomb today.

http://www.randpacusa.com/fax_bomb.aspx?pid=0119b

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:22 PM (piMMO)

143

The Commies tried for half a century to be a 'third party' here.
They failed.
That's why they took over the Dem party...from within.

That's what Conservatives need to do with the GOP.
It would take at least a half century for a new "true alternative" conservative party to establish itself to the point of winning national elections.

Wheatie- I agree with your sentiments. Problem is we don't have 50 years. I wonder, realisitically, how long we can continue to kick this can down the road till it all implodes?

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 01:22 PM (0SmH0)

144 Yes SOME purity tests must be done. I agree. But wanting to ban AR-15s, to me does not disqualify someone. And no matter what his views are I'm pretty sure Rudy would never in a million years issue 23 gun control EOs.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:22 PM (HDgX3)

145 Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 01:18 PM (fH4X9)

Nonsense.

The Democrats were never more conservative than the GOP even during the days of Nixon.

BTW, Ford vetoed Democrat nonsense like crazy.

If you think Conservatives can take over the GOP in less than 50 years, good luck with that.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:23 PM (tBnjP)

146 And turn me into a criminal, thanks a lot.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon.
http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:21 PM (l86i3)

_______________
If that ever were to happen, existing owners would be exempted from the law. You know this.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:23 PM (HDgX3)

147 Not all lawyers are bad. Gowdy, for one.Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:20 PM (piMMO)I can't decide if I want to make a joke about Gowdy's looks clouding your judgment on that one...so just make up your own.

Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 01:23 PM (GaqMa)

148 121

and kittehs

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children of course) at January 19, 2013 01:23 PM (Cnqmv)

149 Yes SOME purity tests must be done. I agree. But wanting to ban AR-15s, to me does not disqualify someone.

Youjust turned yourself into my enemy, would you like to walk it back?

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:24 PM (l86i3)

150 @136: agreed. Now is not the time for nuance re gun ownership; anyone who does not support the Second Amendment unequivocally is helping the other side.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at January 19, 2013 01:24 PM (IlZPo)

151 CAC!
Glad so see you're getting coherant again. I was worried we had lost you for a while there.
Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 12:59 PM (GaqMa)

I've always been coherent. Often wrong, but coherent.

Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 01:24 PM (aYKjq)

152 Yes SOME purity tests must be done. I agree. But wanting to ban AR-15s, to me does not disqualify someone. And no matter what his views are I'm pretty sure Rudy would never in a million years issue 23 gun control EOs.


***

To give him credit, he did also say that he believes there are Constitutional issues with the EOs.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:24 PM (piMMO)

153 If that ever were to happen, existing owners would be exempted from the law. You know this.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:23 PM (HDgX3)

Oh, good Christ, what planet are you on?

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:24 PM (l86i3)

154 Eman #47- EX-fucking-ACTLY!! LIB.

Posted by: Guido at January 19, 2013 01:24 PM (XLuH2)

155 Yes SOME purity tests must be done. I agree. But wanting to ban AR-15s, to me does not disqualify someone. And no matter what his views are I'm pretty sure Rudy would never in a million years issue 23 gun control EOs.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:22 PM (HDgX3)

The concept of freedom seems to escape you.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:26 PM (tBnjP)

156 I can't decide if I want to make a joke about Gowdy's looks clouding your judgment on that one...so just make up your own.

****

He is hot, but not good-looking, if that makes any sense.

I do not find him particularly handsome. I think it's his hair.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:26 PM (piMMO)

157 150
@136: agreed. Now is not the time for nuance re gun ownership; anyone
who does not support the Second Amendment unequivocally is helping the
other side.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at January 19, 2013 01:24 PM (IlZPo)

__________________
Between 1994 and 2004 did the 2nd Amendment not exist? I'm not arguing for an assault weapon ban. I am saying that if it did happen, I wouldn't exactly lose much sleep over it. And I know the argument in favor of allowing AR-15s. Politically though, I don't think this is smart for the GOP or gun rights in general. Your average Joe 6 Pack probably thinks the same way as Rudy, why the fuck does anyone need one of those things?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:26 PM (HDgX3)

158 I've always been coherent. Often wrong, but coherent. Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 01:24 PM (aYKjq)I'm not sure the dark matter talk was coherent...but sure...whatever .

Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 01:26 PM (GaqMa)

159
To give him credit, he did also say that he believes there are Constitutional issues with the EOs.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:24 PM (piMMO)

_________
That's my purity test. He gets an A+.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:27 PM (HDgX3)

160 It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
The Gang Runs for Office

Too funny.

Posted by: sTevo at January 19, 2013 01:27 PM (VMcEw)

161 He is hot, but not good-looking, if that makes any sense.

I do not find him particularly handsome. I think it's his hair.Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:26 PM (piMMO)
Fine Fine, I must be confusing you with another 'ette gushing over him.You all look the same in my head .

Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 01:27 PM (GaqMa)

162 I predict we get nothing! Just like we have for the last two years with Boehner and McConnell. On the off chance that the Republicans accidentally win a few seats, we'll still get nothing! Yeah for us!

The Repubs are there for the same reason Dems are --- to stuff their pockets with cash and set up family members with lobbying jobs. The Dem voter base knows their leaders are doing this and are just fine with it as long as a little bit of that money comes their way. Our leaders lie to us while they participate in the money grab but we get nothing bc we're the party of stupid.

Posted by: L, elle at January 19, 2013 01:27 PM (0PiQ4)

163 Politically though, I don't think this is smart for the GOP or gun rights in general. Your average Joe 6 Pack probably thinks the same way as Rudy, why the fuck does anyone need one of those things?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:26 PM (HDgX3)

You are now marked as a stealth troll.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:28 PM (tBnjP)

164 You are now marked as a stealth troll.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:28 PM (tBnjP)


Yep, a squishy fuck stealth troll.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:29 PM (l86i3)

165 Fine Fine, I must be confusing you with another 'ette gushing over him.You all look the same in my head .

****

There are several. I think Tami might be one.

I admit though, when he opens his mouth to speak.... ahhhhhhh.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:29 PM (piMMO)

166 the issue drag on for another 6 months until which time you know the cave will happen.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:20 PM (HDgX3)

You should give them your daughter to rape so they don't do any damage to your front door. After all, protecting her might just get blood stains on your carpet. Can't have that.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 01:30 PM (OQpzc)

167 "And he's still sending me emails asking for money. I got on his list because I left him an email telling him to withdraw because he was an idiot. Apparently separating his email lists into "likes you" and "hates your stinking guts" is to difficult for him."

Ha! I did the same, and old Akin and his kin sent me email after email.

Posted by: sexypig at January 19, 2013 01:30 PM (dZQh7)

168 162-
the party of stupid. Heh. This reminded me of the Division Commander i had in Korea back in 2000- the Ragin Cajun LTG Honore- who stated to the media during the Katrina disaster, "You're stuck on stupid!"
That is the repubs in a nutshell. Stuck on stupid. Oh well. I live in the People's Republic of WA; I have senators murray (voted the dumbest senator) and cantwell (a homewrecker and phony). My gov and state reps are all solid blue. I'm fucked in my corner of the heartland. I wish you all a good fight, in those states where your voice can be heard.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 01:32 PM (0SmH0)

169 145...If you think Conservatives can take over the GOP in less than 50 years, good luck with that.

The transformation began with Reagan.
So I would say, that it is still under way.

The sentiments that fueled Ross Perot's third party run, still exist...and errupted again with the Tea Party.

But Perot's third party efforts resulted in Clinton winning. Twice.
Which, unfortunately is what will happen again...if we go third party.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 01:32 PM (fH4X9)

170 I wonder, realisitically, how long we can continue to kick this can down the road till it all implodes?

Less than 10 years. The rest of the world is starting to wise up to how hollowed out the USA is.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 01:32 PM (3QaxX)

171 Did I mention above that Rand is reporting a rumor that Reid will use the nuclear option as soon as this Tuesday?

The fax bomb goes off every time someone signs the petition.

Sign it.

http://www.randpacusa.com/fax_bomb.aspx?pid=0119b


He's up to nearly 90k signatures so far.

That's a lot of faxes.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:33 PM (piMMO)

172 You are now marked as a stealth troll.





Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:28 PM (tBnjP)

__________
And I am marking you as someone who is incapable of critical thinking.
You know who told me repeatedly who the fuck needs an AR-15? You know who has no problem requiring people to register guns and/or get a gun license? My wife. I always look to her for the "common man" view of things. She's apolitical generally. She only votes Republican because she knows it will make me happy. And to her and her friends the idea of an AR-15 is fucking insane, even though they have no problems with the right to own guns in general. You may not agree with it. You may think it's unconstitutional. That's all fine and good. But politically speaking, it's hurting both the GOP and gun rights in general since now gun rights = right to own an AR-15.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:34 PM (HDgX3)

173 Is there any indication Rudy has given a single thought to running in 2016? He would've made a perfect anybody-but-Mitt candidate last year, at least better than what we had, but never made a peep in that direction.


I'm almost embarrassed making these points because it's too far away to even think about.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 01:34 PM (rXEoZ)

174 169 Wheatie,

and the left has lurched far, far more 'red' in the historic sense of that color.

Which is to say "le Internationale."

If freedom is to survive in any form we either stay GOP and let the RiNO NE gang fuck us forever, or divorce.

Chris Christie gives three fucks about free markets, or freedom vs free shit and "muslim equality"

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 01:35 PM (LRFds)

175 You should give them your daughter to rape so they
don't do any damage to your front door. After all, protecting her might
just get blood stains on your carpet. Can't have that.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 01:30 PM (OQpzc)

______________
WTF??

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:35 PM (HDgX3)

176 GOP will lose the House in '14

will not take Senate


you can say you read it here first and that you knew me back when

Posted by: Jones in CO at January 19, 2013 01:36 PM (8sCoq)

177 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:34 PM (HDgX3)

Hiding behind your wife won't do you any good, stealth troll.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:36 PM (tBnjP)

178 Is it just me or do the gun banning arguments always miss the point of the amendment?

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 01:36 PM (rXEoZ)

179 I so hope the reports that all the Algerian hostages are dead is wrong.

Im happy they took out a lot of the terrorists, but hate that the hostages died as well.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:37 PM (piMMO)

180 172 Mr moo Moo,

Can you ask your wife is I am allowed to own a High perfromance PT Cruiser that takes 93 octane?

Also can I ask your wife how free the market will be allowed to be?

Can she have about a twenty minute block open so I can explain to her that Ben Ghazi is not a gay Jewish hair dresser?

If I am to lose my liberty for your wife's preference cascade I am dying to meet her.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 01:37 PM (LRFds)

181 GOP will lose the House in '14

will not take Senate


you can say you read it here first and that you knew me back when


****

No. I don't accept that.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:37 PM (piMMO)

182 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:34 PM (HDgX3)

Do you even know what an AR-15 is? I think you have been bent by the media. Go to the blaze and watch the hot chick, Miss Hupp, shoot the weapons.

We can't give up anything, nothing, 0, zilch, cause once we do, it's the fisrt domino. If you can't see that, god help you.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:37 PM (l86i3)

183
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:34 PM (HDgX3)

You know what else the common man often doesn't think is necessary, statutes that protect against lawfare especially in regards to the 1st amendment.
Not working out that great if we gave up on those now would it?

Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 01:37 PM (GaqMa)

184 178 Captain Hate,

That makes 'wives' uncomfortable.

Divorce is necessary, and Mr Moo moo my wife is the one who hinted she wanted me to build her her AR-15 Carbine.

No offense.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 01:38 PM (LRFds)

185 181 NDH,

We keep the house, at best tie the senate.

This all is of course silly we are assuming there will be a 2014, let alone a 2016 for elections, the US as rendered, or free speech.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 01:39 PM (LRFds)

186 182
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:34 PM (HDgX3)



Do you even know what an AR-15 is? I think you have been bent by the
media. Go to the blaze and watch the hot chick, Miss Hupp, shoot the
weapons.



We can't give up anything, nothing, 0, zilch, cause once we do, it's the fisrt domino. If you can't see that, god help you.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon.
http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:37 PM (l86i3)

_________________
For the 77th time, I don't care one way or another. I am saying ****POLITICALLY**** this is a losing issue. Can you really not understand the concept?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:40 PM (HDgX3)

187 Well, I have to hang blinds. As a multi talented individual, I get no rest. I love you guys.

Get your mind right Mr. Moo Moo. You are failing the freedom test.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:40 PM (l86i3)

188 We can't give up anything, nothing, 0, zilch, cause once we do, it's the fisrt domino. If you can't see that, god help you.

Right on OSP. This talk of needs is like defining what the middle class is- or exactly how much money makes a person "rich."

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 01:40 PM (0SmH0)

189 >No. I don't accept that.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:37 PM (piMMO)

that's fine. I saved my comment for future review. We'll see if I'm right next fall. BTW...

http://minx.cc/?post=316050

#214

you're all forgetting something

in 2008, the media's mission was to elect the first sort-of black president

in 2012, the narrative must be completed with Fuckstick's re-election



so it doesn't matter who gets the Rep nom. Obama will be re-elected

you can say you read it here first and that you knew me back when

Posted by: Jones at May 11, 2011 07:51 PM (cUNcx)


Posted by: Jones in CO at January 19, 2013 01:41 PM (8sCoq)

190 Hey Moo Moo. Telling someone they are incapable of critically thinking and then saying 'because my wife and her bff's told me so' kinda makes you well....never mind you won't get it.

Posted by: Guido at January 19, 2013 01:41 PM (XLuH2)

191 For the 77th time, I don't care one way or another. I am saying ****POLITICALLY**** this is a losing issue. Can you really not understand the concept?


****

Mr. Moo.

We have compromised and acquiesced our way from a conservative party to a moderate one and the left has become even more entrenched as a result.

We cannot continue to die the death of 1000 cuts.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:41 PM (piMMO)

192 186 Mr Moo Moo,

I am also pretty certain that everyone magically getting a trillion dollars is a pretty POPULAR political concept.

Divorced from reality and economic sanity but popular naytheless.

Your wife does not get to strip away my right to speak as I see fit through law.

She can however not invite me over to dinner for saying your notion is daft.

"freedom" try it the fuck out.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 01:43 PM (LRFds)

193 Barack Obama is a child molester.

Posted by: Buck Bradley at January 19, 2013 01:43 PM (PDRXW)

194 Mt Carmel, PA elementary school suspends little girl for TEN DAYS following terrorist threats made with a pink Hello Kitty bubble gun.

WTF is wrong with people?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:44 PM (piMMO)

195 174...If freedom is to survive in any form we either stay GOP and let the RiNO NE gang fuck us forever, or divorce.

Yeah, the 'RINO NE gang' is not just in the NE any more...they've migrated into other states, too.
Like the Bush Dynasty.

The GOP was sent a message in 2006...when people stayed home in droves, and let the Dems take over.

They were given a reprieve in 2010, and put on probation.
They seem to have forgotten that.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 01:44 PM (fH4X9)

196 High performance PT Cruiser
---

Oh man, I have to have one of those.

Posted by: sTevo at January 19, 2013 01:44 PM (VMcEw)

197 194 NDH,

they are unthinking Nazis trying to alter our national culture through the raw use of unaccountable force.

The proper response is "fuck you" and with vouchers that would have bite.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 01:45 PM (LRFds)

198 Oh how I fucking hate seeing Virginia blue.

Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 01:46 PM (sqp6o)

199 The Repubs are there for the same reason Dems are --- to stuff their
pockets with cash and set up family members with lobbying jobs. The Dem
voter base knows their leaders are doing this and are just fine with it
as long as a little bit of that money comes their way. Our leaders lie
to us while they participate in the money grab but we get nothing bc
we're the party of stupid.


So let's see, I guess that takes the socons out of your GOP, too. Akin and Mourdock were socons, and Akin staffed his campaign with his family and clearly had only himself as a priority. That didn't work out so well. Then there are the RINOs, but they hate the country and want to see it become Communist, so they won't join with you. The libertarian wing of the GOP will all vote for Rand Paul. Many fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan.

My question is who exactly are you going to get for your new party?

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:47 PM (6TB1Z)

200 Mr. Cow.

So your wife is an idiot, and therefore, I should give up my right to protect my family in case of a riot?

Give up your ability if you want. Don't you dare think of taking away mine.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 01:47 PM (OQpzc)

201 196 Stevo,

I laughed too....you get one with the Stage one injector it is at least as peppy as the '83 Mustangs were....

wife loved it....point being I am thrilled that thanks to the miracle of Media inc, Barky choom, and the internet my lifestyle now exists at the whim of Mrs. moo moo and we yet still claim to be 'free'

heh though as a fan of real muscle cars "high performance pt cruiser" is sorta like "Turbo Yugo"

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 01:48 PM (LRFds)

202 Posted by: Buck Bradley at January 19, 2013 01:43 PM (PDRXW)

I refuse to use his name.
But yeah...King Clusterfuck is a child molestor.

He's drowning our kids in Debt.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 01:48 PM (fH4X9)

203 Give up your ability if you want. Don't you dare think of taking away mine.


****

That's the thing. Those with no means for defense always assume that someone will stand up and take responsibility for them.

After all, it's the right thing to do, amiright?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:49 PM (piMMO)

204 PA elementary school suspends little girl for TEN DAYS following terrorist threats made with a pink Hello Kitty bubble gun.

That's a fine looking albatross there, it should be hung around the Democrat's necks.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 01:50 PM (3QaxX)

205 Oh how I f***ing hate seeing Virginia blue.

Tell me about it. On the plus side, Warner will run for pres in '16. He might just win, too. There, doesn't that make you feel better.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:50 PM (6TB1Z)

206 194

unreal. The good thing about these abortions of justice is that usually Americans barrage the school board with faxes and calls telling them what insane assholes they are. But to echo your sentiment- yeah, WTF is wrong with people. Guess the days of playing army or cowboys and indians on the school grounds are over.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 01:50 PM (0SmH0)

207 heh though as a fan of real muscle cars "high performance pt cruiser" is sorta like "Turbo Yugo"


****


I swear I saw one in a Kmart parking lot abut 20 years ago.

It was so absurd that I remember it today.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:50 PM (piMMO)

208 203 NDH,

ask the folks in Algeria or OUR GODDAMNED GOVT AGENTS in Libya how that worked out for them when relying on our military to get it done....

yeah go ahead moo moo lay down

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 01:50 PM (LRFds)

209 My question is who exactly are you going to get for your new party?
Posted by: pep atJanuary 19, 2013 01:47 PM (6TB1Z)

Can you point me at the last fiscal conservative win? Seems the Rs had control for a while with Bush as president. How, exactly, did they lead the way in controlling spending?

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 01:50 PM (OQpzc)

210 Mr. Moo.



We have compromised and acquiesced our way from a conservative party
to a moderate one and the left has become even more entrenched as a
result.



We cannot continue to die the death of 1000 cuts.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:41 PM (piMMO)

______________
I agree in general. Specifically to "assault rifles" (and I know it's not a universal definition by let's for the sake of argument say it means an AR15) this is not a fight that's worth having. I know I am in the minority here with these views.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:51 PM (HDgX3)

211 207 NDH,

there is a fetish culture in cars that goes for "cheap max utilitarian tech" a properly cared for and tweaked Yugo was in theory a helluva rally car.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 01:52 PM (LRFds)

212 Oh, and if I heard the report correctly, when they searched for the dangerous pink assault bubble gun, they couldn't find it.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:52 PM (piMMO)

213 Can you point me at the last fiscal conservative win?

Scott Walker
John Kasich
Bob McDonnell
Bobby Jindal
Nikki Haley
Mitch Daniels

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:52 PM (6TB1Z)

214 I object to the continuous use of the Color red to designate our side. RED is the color of COMMUNIST DEMOCRATS!!!!!


We need to stop using it!!!!!


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 01:54 PM (bb5+k)

215 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:51 PM (HDgX3)

Disgusting.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:54 PM (tBnjP)

216 200
Mr. Cow.



So your wife is an idiot, and therefore, I should give up my right to protect my family in case of a riot?



Give up your ability if you want. Don't you dare think of taking away mine.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 01:47 PM (OQpzc)

_______________
It's this type of hyperbole that is hurting the cause. You sound like a fool if you think not having access to an AR15 means you can't protect your family.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:54 PM (HDgX3)

217 How, exactly, did they lead the way in controlling spending?

But just to be clear, I'm not defending the GOP Congress during the Bush years. I loathed most of the leadership for the last 25-odd years. Nonetheless, I am aware of the electoral realities. Should we push the boundary to get more conservative folks in office? Absolutely. Should we do it while telling the electorate to f*** off? Yes, if you like the government we have now.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:54 PM (6TB1Z)

218 214 I object to the continuous use of the Color red to designate our side. RED is the color of COMMUNIST DEMOCRATS!!!!!


We need to stop using it!!!!!

Another coup by the media. I really despise the media. Especially that asshole Bob Schieffer.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 01:54 PM (0SmH0)

219 209 Invictus,

at a bare minimum they wanted only 1/4 what Pelosi uses as baseline at their worst....

we are in some weird mix of letting the good be killed by "must be perfect" and "this is good enough" when it is not but still better than D


The last gen to have a truly strong America is dying and being replaced by kids brainwashed that there are free lunches and I owe them my house.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 01:54 PM (LRFds)

220 Well, the M777s at Quantico provided some nice background noise this morning.

Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 01:55 PM (sqp6o)

221 Another coup by the media. I really despise the media. Especially that asshole Bob Schieffer.


****


Especially?

I am impressed with your ability to single one from the flock.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:55 PM (piMMO)

222
Any restriction or ban on ANY practical weapon is an abridgement of a Constitutionally affirmed right.

Don't be going into the weeds with the nuclear cannon, etc, either. Those are strawmen.

Since it is so stated in our Constitution, that right cannot be withheld.

What I own will remain mine--end of discussion.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 19, 2013 01:56 PM (SAMxH)

223 216 Mr Moo Moo,

Barack obama supported a party in Kenya's elections...his buddy's supporters necklaced Christians/...


any questions on Obama's morals?

sorry stud "no'

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 01:56 PM (LRFds)

224 213
Can you point me at the last fiscal conservative win?

Scott Walker
John Kasich
Bob McDonnell
Bobby Jindal
Nikki Haley
Mitch Daniels


Oh, and I forgot Chris Christie.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:56 PM (6TB1Z)

225 OK Moo. And I think we've lost too many battles because our 'leaders' said "this is not a fight worth having". Our enemies count on that kind of thinking.

Posted by: Guido at January 19, 2013 01:57 PM (XLuH2)

226 Oh, and I forgot Chris Christie.


***

I needed a good belly laugh.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:57 PM (piMMO)

227

I need an AR-15 just like Rosa Parks needed to ride in the front of the bus instead of the back.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 01:57 PM (jTKU5)

228 Don't be going into the weeds with the nuclear cannon, etc, either. Those are strawmen.

Calling them strawmen doesn't help answer the question when it is asked by the media, and it will be asked, and should be asked. This is the abortion thing all over again. I've been looking for a good answer, and haven't really seen one yet. How do you justify restricting the one and not the other? Serious question.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:58 PM (6TB1Z)

229 214 I object to the continuous use of the Color red to designate our side. RED is the color of COMMUNIST DEMOCRATS!!!!!
We need to stop using it!!!!!


Agreed.
I hate it too.
The DNCmedia established this "red state" bullshit, back in 2000 when Bush won.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 01:58 PM (fH4X9)

230 Don't really care about a coming election that conservatives will never be allowed to win.

Spending all of my time prepping for LIB.

Posted by: Trainer on his wife's iPad at January 19, 2013 01:58 PM (0FfS/)

231 And at some point you have stop crossing the street to get away from the bully on the corner. You have to say...this is the day.

Posted by: Guido at January 19, 2013 01:58 PM (XLuH2)

232 this is not a fight that's worth having

Banning items based on irrationality and hysteria is a pretty slippery slope. Nothing good ever comes of it, and the law of unintended consequences applies as well.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 01:59 PM (3QaxX)

233 It's this type of hyperbole that is hurting the cause.

Your concern is noted.

You sound like a fool if you think not having access to an AR15 means you can't protect your family.

Which means you've totally missed the point of the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Ampersands Anonymous at January 19, 2013 01:59 PM (mbxHg)

234 Especially?

I am impressed with your ability to single one from the flock.

Simply because he was forefront in my mind concerning his latest blathering about NRA being taken out like the Nazis of old.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 01:59 PM (0SmH0)

235 I needed a good belly laugh.

You may not like lots of his positions and what he did with Obama after the storm (I know I don't), but you can't deny that he made a hell of a lot of progress in cleaning up the NJ budget and tax system. I count that part of him as a conservative win.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:59 PM (6TB1Z)

236 Moo Moo, the stealth troll, is unhappy that we silly folks think freedom means being free.

How silly of us.

A free person decides for himself what he or she needs.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:00 PM (tBnjP)

237 Any restriction or ban on ANY practical weapon is an abridgement of a Constitutionally affirmed right.

****

FNC did a great job a few days ago when they showed a photo of a rifle with a standard wood stock next to the same rifle, in black, with a bigger clip and different grip and pointing out that the black gun is considered by many to be an assault rifle.

They aren't "assault" rifles. They are "black" rifles.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:00 PM (piMMO)

238 233 Cavil,

the real purpose of the 2d amendment probably gives Mr Moo moo vapors and makes Mrs moo moo go catatonic.

The founders would shit on us as a whole.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:00 PM (LRFds)

239 The founders would shit on us as a whole.

I would hope they'd be so kind as to put us out of our misery.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Ampersands Anonymous at January 19, 2013 02:01 PM (mbxHg)

240 Any restriction or ban on ANY practical weapon is an abridgement of a Constitutionally affirmed right.

Whoa, where does the 2nd Amendment use or define "practical"? Practical doesn't enter into it.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:01 PM (6TB1Z)

241 The DNCmedia established this "red state" bullshit, back in 2000 when Bush won.





Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 01:58 PM (fH4X9)


I remember that and rolling my eyes and not being surprised.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (rXEoZ)

242 222

Any restriction or ban on ANY practical weapon is an abridgement of a Constitutionally affirmed right.

Don't be going into the weeds with the nuclear cannon, etc, either. Those are strawmen.

Since it is so stated in our Constitution, that right cannot be withheld.

What I own will remain mine--end of discussion.


Posted by: irongrampa at January 19, 2013 01:56 PM (SAMxH)

_________________
The nuclear argument is idiotic since it's not a gun. However, fully auto machine guns were banned. And the republic survived somehow as did the right of people to own other guns. Are you suggesting we bring those back too? If an AR15 is practical and legal, why shouldn't an M16 be as well? A right is a right after all.

This is why the left has such an easy time painting conservatives as extremists. Standing back and loooking at it from a distance, freaking out that you can't protect your family because you can't own an AR15 is just laughable.
And there are restrictions on constitutional rights. There are libel laws that directly go against the 1st Amendment.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (HDgX3)

243

You guys are going to hell with that "need" thing if you let it become a standard.

You "need" 400 horsepower, 300 horsepower, 200 horsepower?

You need 4,000 square feet, 3,000 square feet, 2,000 square feet?

You need a 51 inch TV?

You need a free-standing single-family home?

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (jTKU5)

244 testing one two three

Posted by: d at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (mHjlJ)

245 You may not like lots of his positions and what he did with Obama after the storm (I know I don't), but you can't deny that he made a hell of a lot of progress in cleaning up the NJ budget and tax system. I count that part of him as a conservative win.


****

A conservative on any level could only have improved that state and, in his case, a bombastic personality worked. So, I'll give you that one.

Still, he is perfect for NJ, not the national stage.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (piMMO)

246 It's this type of hyperbole that is hurting the
cause. You sound like a fool if you think not having access to an AR15
means you can't protect your family.


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:54 PM (HDgX3)

If you've ever worked on Cars, (hotrods) you know that for the longest time, the 327/350 Chevy engine was the most ubiquitous engine you could find. You could get any part for it that you wanted, and usually far cheaper than for any other motor.

Ford had something similar with the 351 Cleveland, but the easiest engine to build was always the Chevy small block 327/350.

AR15s are like that in the Gun world. Exact same situation. They build anything and everything for an AR15, and you can get replacement parts easily because they are so popular. The Same is true for the Russian designed AK-47, but many Americans have a fondness for American guns.
A lot of people desire an AR15 because it *IS* so popular. It is a very good general purpose gun, with relatively inexpensive ammo. Figure it out.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:03 PM (bb5+k)

247 232 Purple Avenger,

Perhaps the left will enjoy it when we point out to the 3d world and our poor that they are lying their asses off on "organic foods uber alles" which is at least as stupid as "tardasil"?

The real costs of Ethanol and say "fuck you greedy farmers"

The donks having Free Shit Army's vote is because we don't fight for it at all.

Donk Policy is what keeps the poor poor, and their pap on their luxury preferences they get to cry over unrebutted does bear REAL cost.

We need to get in the trenches and figure out if the working poor are smart enough to be worth saving and help them up towards the middle harder and more PARTISANLY.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:03 PM (LRFds)

248 freaking out that you can't protect your family because you can't own an AR15 is just laughable

And you get to make that call why?

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:03 PM (6TB1Z)

249 Hallelujah, I can now post comments again, Pixy must have fixed something.

Posted by: OregonMuse at January 19, 2013 02:04 PM (mHjlJ)

250 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (HDgX3)

A law-abiding American Citizen should be able to have all the weaponry modern technology can make except WMD.

Why can't I own a fully automatic weapon?

Does that scare you?

Boo!

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:04 PM (tBnjP)

251 You sound like a fool if you think not having access to an AR15 means you can't protect your family.

If you can cite a better "all around" weapon for riot defense situations that people DON'T want to ban, there's millions of eager buyers out there waiting for your wisdom.

50+ people were murdered during the Rodney King riots.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:04 PM (3QaxX)

252 Hallelujah, I can now post comments again, Pixy must have fixed something.


***

Were you banned?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:04 PM (piMMO)

253 239 Cavil,

Likely they would beat us hard.

They were not pussies.

I can easily imagine George Washington settling for the scraps of representation England may have offered to keep us at home had he known we would be such pussies.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:05 PM (LRFds)

254 A law-abiding American Citizen should be able to have all the weaponry modern technology can make except WMD.

And what is the constitutional underpinning behind your banning of my right to a B-52?

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:05 PM (6TB1Z)

255 Still, he is perfect for NJ, not the national stage.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (piMMO)


Exactly; I'm quite fine with him staying where he is because it's no sweat of my ass. If he cleans up that shithole, good for him; if not, so fucking what.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 02:05 PM (rXEoZ)

256
You guys are going to hell with that "need" thing if you let it become a standard.

You "need" 400 horsepower, 300 horsepower, 200 horsepower?

You need 4,000 square feet, 3,000 square feet, 2,000 square feet?

You need a 51 inch TV?

You need a free-standing single-family home?


Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (jTKU5)

_____________________So your argument is whatever you WANT you should be able to get simply for wanting it? No restrictions whatsoever. Want = able to get without govt interference.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:06 PM (HDgX3)

257 ...freaking out that you can't protect your family because you can't own an AR15 is just laughable

Tell that to the Korean store owners in LA during the Rodney King riots of 1993.

Posted by: OregonMuse at January 19, 2013 02:06 PM (mHjlJ)

258 Please, a little civility to Moo Moo. You don't have to vote for him for president, just don't talk about people's daughters.

Posted by: sexypig at January 19, 2013 02:06 PM (dZQh7)

259 Still, he is perfect for NJ, not the national stage.


Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse


I would have disagreed with you up until 2012. I'm sorry to say that he's now out of my consideration.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:07 PM (6TB1Z)

260 253
someone said that we should hook up a generator to the bodies of the Founders. The amount of electricity generated from their spinning could power the US for centuries….bah dum…!

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 02:07 PM (0SmH0)

261

A law-abiding American Citizen should be able to have all the weaponry modern technology can make except WMD.

_______


WHOA!!

Are you restricting my right to protect my family by not allowing me a WMD? Fucking commie!!

Seriously, why not a WMD? If you think the 2nd amendment is absolute, why shouldn't WMDs be allowed?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:08 PM (HDgX3)

262 254 pep,

You can own a B-52....theoretically...well you could modify a boeing Airframe to be a bomber, and drop any non explosive warhead you wanted on any property you could that would not cause fire, destroy another's property etc etc....


now quick why do you get to own a Car?

I can kill thirty people on a whim in a car.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:08 PM (LRFds)

263 "Tell that to the Korean store owners in LA during the Rodney King riots of 1993."

Shotguns and regular old rifles work great too.

I'm against an AR-15 ban because its stupid and not constitutional, but so is claiming ONLY an AR-15 works for defense.

Posted by: sexypig at January 19, 2013 02:08 PM (dZQh7)

264 Absolutely. Should we do it while telling the electorate to f*** off? Yes, if you like the government we have now.


Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:54 PM (6TB1Z)


I'm all in favor of telling the Electorate to Fuck off. If they are too stupid to understand that they voted for economic collapse followed by massive death and destruction, telling them to "fuck off" is the very least I can do.

This is not about opinions, this is about math and reality. If idiots think that their "lady part" issues are worth sentencing the rest of us to death and destruction, then I hope they are first against the wall, come the revolution.

I regard it as now too late to save this nation from economic collapse. We very badly needed to execute a U-Turn, and thanks to the fucking stupid electorate, we stepped on the accelerator instead. Screw them! I hope they die in the coming fire.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:08 PM (bb5+k)

265
So your argument is whatever you WANT you should be able to get simply for wanting it?
__ _ ________ _________

What is it about"shall not be infringed" that bothers you?

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (jTKU5)

266 The idea that there should be limits to what the Citizen may own comes from the idea there are limits to how much control the citizen can exercise and how much good thinking they can do.

It is elitism and tribalism disguised as nuance.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (tBnjP)

267 Why can't I own a fully automatic weapon?




Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:04 PM (tBnjP)

Because it's against the law. And it has been so for decades. And someohow you've managed to survive.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (HDgX3)

268 You can own a B-52....theoretically...

Okay, let's be more precise and consider a nuclear-armed B-52. Again, what is the constitutional argument that allows you to deny it to me but not an AR?

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (6TB1Z)

269 I can easily imagine George Washington settling for the scraps of representation England may have offered to keep us at home had he known we would be such pussies.


****

Speaking of Washington, O'Reilly beat the shit out of a lib last night using Washington as the club.

The asshole wants bibles banned from inaugurations and cited how Washington never said "So help me God" in accepting the oath of office. O'Reilly then asked him why Washington's speech itself was so peppered with references to God and, finally, the guy admitted he had never read the speech.

Something about the 2012 election seems to have set BOR back on the right path. He's a blowhard, but at least he's not swinging left now.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (piMMO)

270 I'm quite fine with him staying where he is because it's no sweat of my ass. If he cleans up that shithole, good for him; if not, so fucking what.

I agree; Christie is doing the Lord's work fighting the fat-assed teachers' unions and maybe what he's doing there can serve as a model for how bloated and corrupt public employee interest groups can be fought, but other than that, pffft, that's pretty much all he's good for.

Posted by: OregonMuse at January 19, 2013 02:10 PM (mHjlJ)

271 251...50+ people were murdered during the Rodney King riots.

Yep, PurpAv.

And lest we forget...they were "angry about a video".

Youtube didn't exist back then, but the media kept replaying that video footage of the police beating Rodney King...and voila!...riots broke out.

Barky brought the concept back, when he kept using that phrase..."angry about a video"...over and over.

So I say, let's use it.

We need those high-capacity weapons, for when a crowd gets..."angry about a video"...and attacks your home.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 02:10 PM (fH4X9)

272 265

So your argument is whatever you WANT you should be able to get simply for wanting it?
__ _ ________ _________

What is it about"shall not be infringed" that bothers you?



Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (jTKU5)

__________
So anything goes? Any weapon can be owned by citizens. No restrictions.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:10 PM (HDgX3)

273
Another coup by the media. I really despise the media. Especially that asshole Bob Schieffer.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 01:54 PM (0SmH0)

They did it in 1992 because Bill Clinton was such a blatant Communist cock sucker that it was just too obvious. Had they labeled him with Red, it would probably have cost him the election.

No, it was intentional misdirection propaganda to cover up the fact that Democrats are in their hearts Red Communist bastards.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:10 PM (bb5+k)

274 Seriously, why not a WMD? If you think the 2nd amendment is absolute, why shouldn't WMDs be allowed?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:08 PM (HDgX3)

I don't think it is absolute. I make an exception for WMD.

Troll.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:11 PM (tBnjP)

275 Mr. Moo

I think we all understand the concept of "the hill to die on", which is essentially where your argument started. However, this is a basic Constitutional right that is being screwed with.

It is not about need or want. It is about rights.

Constitutionally ensured rights are a hill to die on.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:12 PM (piMMO)

276 265 meremortal,

they want the power to inflict their preference cascades.

The AR-15 is no better a rifle in the 5.56 carbine self-loading class than the Ruger mini-14 arguably....

Ban the M-16(lie but still)

Ban it it is evil and black!

Okay ban the mini-14 too!

great so i go and buy say a CETME in .308 with a 10 shot mag....

more power than an AR

BAN IT!

You give them the ARs they will move on to the next 'evil" just like smoking marches ever on and they are trying with organic food hysteria....

They want total control of your life from birth(if you get lucky) to dead body disposal soon unless i miss my guess....

just how long it takes for Mrs. moo moo to make up her mind.

I want freedom

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:12 PM (LRFds)

277 No snark here; I love how we can get all fired up about stuff and have a good debate about it without being disagreeable to each other.

And in case you are wondering, I'm wearing my Internet bulletproof NBC-proof armor with an indefinite internal air supply, so flame away

Posted by: Truman North at January 19, 2013 02:12 PM (I2LwF)

278 Something about the 2012 election seems to have set
BOR back on the right path. He's a blowhard, but at least he's not
swinging left now.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (piMMO)


Is he still a retard on economics?

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 02:12 PM (rXEoZ)

279 I don't think it is absolute. I make an exception for WMD.



Troll.


I'm asking the same question. Am I also a troll because you can't answer it coherently? "I make an exception" is Obama talk, not Constitutionalism.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:13 PM (6TB1Z)

280 Because it's against the law. And it has been so for decades. And someohow you've managed to survive.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (HDgX3)

That wasn't the meaning of the question.

Try again, troll.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:13 PM (tBnjP)

281
Stupid? You mean the voters in IN and MO, for example? OK.

Voters so stupid they would choose a loathsome (and loathed) incumbent who supports the policies degrading the country and its institutions and freedoms and putting everyone at the brink of financial disaster? Or do something similar in choosing a pathetic hack former congressman over a successful state-wide official, again with the choice of endorsing the country's decline and degradation or at least trying something a bit different?

Not a revelation, but still astonishing (and devastating to the country's prospects) that any significant number of voters in 2012 could be affected, much less actually swayed, by a few bizarre comments from candidates when their opponents were pathetic/unpopular and the stakes were what they were.

Yes, the current political class is despicable, small, clueless, or worse. But the voters make them possible. I'm sick of the idiocy of focusing on the "politicians" - it's your neighbors, co-workers, family members, softball team mates, barbers, even shooting range acquaintances that have degraded the country the way it is. Every moronic NPR listener, every greedy unionized firefighter or teacher, every small business or corporate person who is oblivious to everything outside their daily world and is fine with stealing from others via the tax system or guvamint, every lazy or clueless adherent to "climate change" cultism and gaia worship at the expense of human prosperity and freedom, every lawyer doing wills and trusts or real estate or criminal law who thinks things are working normally and is unaware of the farce that has become the SCOTUS and "constitutional law" in general, every one of these people are the stupid ones.

Akin and Mourdock are a million times more intelligent than the idiotic voters who chose degradation and destruction because their delicate sensibilities and intellectual limits couldn't put supreme national interest and isolated bizarre comments (of no possible consequence to public policy on any subject, ever) in proper perspective.

In fact, while picking the most devastating bit of evidence of national degradation is difficult, especially since 2008, it is at least arguable that the idiotic voting behavior or MO and IN voters in 2012, given the obvious stakes, is in the top five. Inertia, prior prosperity, and its unique place atop the world's fiat monetary systemwill keep the US from "burning"indefinitely (sorry, LIB'ers). But the MO and IN Senate outcomes are fairly dispositive evidence that the unseriousness of the electorate is complete, and beyond hope.

Posted by: non-purist at January 19, 2013 02:13 PM (afQnV)

282 Seriously, why not a WMD?

Current arms law does mention nuclear weapons(very briefly), and refers you to the DOE for further guidance. Its not something AFT deals with.

Private companies manufacture our nuclear weapons, so clearly there's some mechanism for private ownership because they're private property until delivered.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:13 PM (3QaxX)

283 I don't think it is absolute. I make an exception for WMD.



Troll.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:11 PM (tBnjP)

_________
Why do you make this exception? What is it about WMDs that make them except from teh 2nd amendment? I've asked you 3 times and you keep evading.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:14 PM (HDgX3)

284 Is he still a retard on economics?

****

I think his taxes going up has set him straight.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:14 PM (piMMO)

285
Ownership of specific weapons devolves into a matter of simple practicality determined by the specific owner.

No more complicated than that.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 19, 2013 02:16 PM (SAMxH)

286 So anything goes? Any weapon can be owned by citizens. No restrictions.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:10 PM (HDgX3)____ ____ ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ So you don't think the Constitution means what it says.Got it.Quite a few citizens own tanks, for example. And you are worried about afairly light caliber rifle that shoots one bulleteach timeyou pull the trigger?You want to change that, amend the Constitution.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:16 PM (jTKU5)

287 Rand Paul is starting to inspire Sean Duffy-like thoughts in my manual steering column.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at January 19, 2013 02:16 PM (azHfB)

288 Agreed.

I hate it too.

The DNCmedia established this "red state" bullshit, back in 2000 when Bush won.





Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 01:58 PM (fH4X9)

Not true. They did it in 1992 to cover up the fact that Bill Clinton was protesting American involvement in Vietnam while he was a student in London, and that he had traveled to Russia during the Vietnam War, and that he had roamed the countryside behind the Iron curtain and met with known communists and Soviet Agents all while studying abroad on a student deferment.

Clinton was a Communist Red motherfucker and the evidence which had come out confirmed it. Coloring him "Blue" was an intentional bit of mis-direction because to have colored him "Red" would make what he was all too obvious.

I am Absolutely certain the Communist media did this in 1992, because I threw a hell of a fit over it when I first noticed it. Regan's states were colored "Blue" in the Election coverage broadcast. The media has kept us "Red" as an intentional bit of misdirection, and we should stop tolerating it!!!!!!!


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:16 PM (bb5+k)

289 Private companies manufacture our nuclear weapons,
so clearly there's some mechanism for private ownership because they're
private property until delivered.


Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:13 PM (3QaxX)

_______
Private companies also make M16 which are explicitly unlawful to own by citizens. I'm not sure what your point is. The final product is illegal. The final product - a WMD - is illegal as well.
The absolutists here say NOTHING should be illegal. I want to know if that means I should have the right to walk into a Cabelas and walk out with a nuclear warhead. Why or why not?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:16 PM (HDgX3)

290 269...Something about the 2012 election seems to have set BOR back on the right path. He's a blowhard, but at least he's not swinging left now.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (piMMO)

---------------

I think he wanted Barky to get re-elected, NDH.

He gets more eyeballs now...and thus,more money.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 02:16 PM (fH4X9)

291 Posted by: non-purist at January 19, 2013 02:13 PM (afQnV)



Great comment; we always get the government we deserve, no matter how much it might piss me off.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 02:17 PM (rXEoZ)

292 Rand Paul is starting to inspire Sean Duffy-like thoughts in my manual steering column.


****

Did I mention (twice) that his PAC is managing a fax bomb?

Go sign it.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:17 PM (piMMO)

293 I'm asking the same question. Am I also a troll because you can't answer it coherently? "I make an exception" is Obama talk, not Constitutionalism.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:13 PM (6TB1Z)

WMD are an exception because of their unique power levels.

I am ready to arguments to the contrary.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:17 PM (tBnjP)

294 281-
great comments.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 02:17 PM (0SmH0)

295 268 pep,

Property rights, liability, and sensible utility.

I know I know outmoded fucking concepts to be certain but I am not the one arguing at wanting to ban an Ar-15 because 'evil" when i can use a single shot .45-70 and a brace of revolvers to exert mayhem if that is sole measure.

If YOU want to compare an AR-15 to a Thermonuclear detonation have at thee elseways fuck off and acknowledge that the US fleet was served by private armed ships as privateers and private artillery ownership was once not simply legal but encouraged.

I'd say the founders would be in awe of ARs and would probably use social pressure rather than ARRRGGGGGGHHHHHH ELEVENTY! LAW LAW LAW hysteria to control the progress of manpack weapons there stud.

Anyone of you ever find any evidence the founders had an opinion on "why does the average farmer NEED a Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifle?'

Me neither, and I am pretty certain repeating arms were extant in the twilight of Jefferson and Adams.

You cannot have a car because of the Exxon valdez Motherfucker!

Is not fucking very convincing is it?

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:17 PM (LRFds)

296 repub primaires in states like WV will make sure todd akin type candidates will win over the more electable ones. Jim Demint needs to earn his heritage checks, he'll make sure a "pure" candidate like a todd akin will win the WV repub primary, only to be massively defeated in the general election.

I predict house goes to the commie democrats in '14, Senate goes 60 to dems, so Barry can ram socialist crap thru in his last 2 years just as he did in the first 2 years.

Glad I no longer own a business, why bother when we've already see the madness between 2009-2011, who in their right minds is going to start, expand jobs, the Federal reserve is in a trap, they cannot ever raise rates, so they will just keep printing money to make up the difference in lessening tax revenues, and growth is slowing even more and more now. Slashing of spending will happen, and when it does it will not be gradual, it will be abrupt.

Posted by: johnc_ex-dem at January 19, 2013 02:17 PM (3Kxux)

297 It is not entirely illegal to own a machine gun.
It has to be registered prior to 1986.
You have to pay a healthy transfer tax.
You will be investigated.

I don't need one but if I wanted one, I am sure I could find one. I might have to pay a ridiculous sum.

Posted by: sTevo at January 19, 2013 02:18 PM (VMcEw)

298 Well all, I do have something to report out of Washington States fucked up government: Republicans have control of our senate here for the first time in years and our governor's race was really close. I really think all conservative Californians should move up here and overwhelm the Democrats since we are teetering on 50/50. Fiscal conservatism works here.

Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 02:18 PM (yUn2v)

299 WMD are an exception because of their unique power levels.



I am ready to arguments to the contrary.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:17 PM (tBnjP)

____________
LOL. So anyone that suggests 2A should have limits is a commie, freedom hating troll. Unless of course the limits are the ones you impose.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:18 PM (HDgX3)

300 And, I couldn't live in a communist state.

Posted by: sTevo at January 19, 2013 02:19 PM (VMcEw)

301 285 Irongrampa,


don't use sense it makes Mrs. Moo moo cry....

Moo moo's argument is as retarded as banning cars because the Challenger blew up.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:19 PM (LRFds)

302 I much prefer Bulgarian political discussions over American.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 19, 2013 02:20 PM (BeSEI)

303 I love that Virginia is going blue. And by "love" I mean hate. That's AFTER we ran an easterner.

Posted by: Y-not at January 19, 2013 02:20 PM (5H6zj)

304
I remember that and rolling my eyes and not being surprised.


Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (rXEoZ)

Everybody should have objected to that, made a big deal out of it, and NOT SHUT UP ABOUT IT!!!!!
That we tolerate them saddling us with Communist Red, is indicative to them that we will tolerate a lot of their other bullshit propaganda.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:20 PM (bb5+k)

305 298
Well all, I do have something to report out of Washington States fucked
up government: Republicans have control of our senate here for the first
time in years and our governor's race was really close. I really think
all conservative Californians should move up here and overwhelm the
Democrats since we are teetering on 50/50. Fiscal conservatism works
here.

Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 02:18 PM (yUn2v)

________________
I wouldn't call our state fiscally conservative. It's not batshit liberal crazy, but it's not exactly Idaho either. Property tax is insane, sales tax is pushing 10%, gas tax is one of the highest in the country. We have no income tax which is nice, but all the other taxes make up for it.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:21 PM (HDgX3)

306 298 Well all, I do have something to report out of Washington States fucked up government: Republicans have control of our senate here for the first time in years and our governor's race was really close. I really think all conservative Californians should move up here and overwhelm the Democrats since we are teetering on 50/50. Fiscal conservatism works here.

there are conservative californians? (anymore?) the last influx of californians transformed our state into what it is today.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 02:21 PM (0SmH0)

307 What is it about WMDs that make them except from teh 2nd amendment?

They're not exempt. There's private and university labs all over the country working on various biological and chemical agents that could be construed as WMD under the UN protocols.

As a practical matter, there's not one whit of difference between infections disease research and WMD, its only a matter of intent. Similarly, many nerve and other chemical agents evolved out of commercial pesticide research, or were common industrial chemicals applied as weapons -- again intent.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:21 PM (3QaxX)

308 288...Not true. They did it in 1992 to cover up the fact that Bill Clinton was... [-snip-]....a Communist Red motherfucker

Yeah...I seem to remember seeing that a few times back then.
Pissed me off at the time, too.

But with the advent of the internet explosion...those maps became 'established' even more.

I hate it.
How do we change it?



Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 02:22 PM (fH4X9)

309 LOL. So anyone that suggests 2A should have limits is a commie, freedom hating troll. Unless of course the limits are the ones you impose.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:18 PM (HDgX3)

The difference is I would never vote to impose the WMD limit, I just think people should abide by it as a matter of agreement, not law.

Otherwise, the citizenry should have the weaponry their technology can produce.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:22 PM (tBnjP)

310 289 Mr Moo moo,

more evidence you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

If your dick is so small or you have need for work for a full auto go buy the goddamned NAF stamp or get a class III dealer's license voila you legally own an M-16.

My uncle has six stamped weapons that are legal automatics.

Jesus fucking Christ we're gonna lose the bill of rights to people who can't be bothered to do fifteen minutes legal research.

http://www.historicarmsclass3.com/Qualified_Purchasers.html

Lord help me you neo-luddites are fucking idiots.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:23 PM (LRFds)

311 I've mentioned it here before but there are attorneys who focus on the every day issues of owning guns: inheritance, transfers, etc...

The leading Gun Trust fella is here in Jax and writes a blog about guns. His law firm is practically papered in Guns and Ammo magazines.

Here: http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:23 PM (piMMO)

312 301
285 Irongrampa,


don't use sense it makes Mrs. Moo moo cry....

Moo moo's argument is as retarded as banning cars because the Challenger blew up.


Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:19 PM (LRFds)

____________________
You guys will never get it.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:24 PM (HDgX3)

313 WMD are an exception because of their unique power levels.

I am ready to arguments to the contrary.


I don't need to argue to the contrary, you need to justify why you get to infringe my Consitutional rights because you've decided something is more powerful than I need.

Who needs something like that? Sound familiar?

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:24 PM (6TB1Z)

314 well morons, mrs squirrel has summoned me for some menial task. gotta run. have a great weekend.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 02:24 PM (0SmH0)

315
And what is the constitutional underpinning behind your banning of my right to a B-52?


Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:05 PM (6TB1Z)


What indeed? American Citizens owned Armed Frigates in 1787. Armed with Cannon. Individuals had their own horse drawn cannon. It was not considered remarkable for Citizens to own field pieces if they wanted.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:24 PM (bb5+k)

316 claiming ONLY an AR-15 works for defense.
Posted by: sexypig at January 19, 2013 02:08 PM (dZQh7)

Incrementalism. How does it work? Just look at the current state of the family, personal responsibility, border control etc... First they came for the automatics...

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 02:25 PM (OQpzc)

317

What we are saying is that the Constitutional right to bear arms has been infringed on enough.

Ownership by individuals of an AR-15 is not something for citizens to worry about.

Now, about those tanks that citizens own....a tank with no cannon is much more dangerous than an AR-15.
Hell, a truck, a grader or other large machinery can take more lives than an AR-15.

So, life-taking capability must not really be the focus here.


Why do you want to outlaw a rifle, Mr. Moo Moo?

And do you also want to confiscate the millions of copies already out there? amongst the populace?

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:25 PM (jTKU5)

318 You, to, Squirrel

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:26 PM (piMMO)

319 too

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:26 PM (piMMO)

320 Jesus fucking Christ we're gonna lose the bill of rights to people who can't be bothered to do fifteen minutes legal research.

http://www.historicarmsclass3.com/Qualified_Purchasers.html

Lord help me you neo-luddites are fucking idiots.


Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:23 PM (LRFds)

_________________
Did the bill of rights disappear 1994-2004? You sound like a lunatic.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:26 PM (HDgX3)

321
_____________________So your argument is
whatever you WANT you should be able to get simply for wanting it? No
restrictions whatsoever. Want = able to get without govt interference.


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:06 PM (HDgX3)


I would suggest than any body which presumes to do the regulating ought to be the individual states. The Second Amendment more or less implies that such is off limits to the Federal.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:26 PM (bb5+k)

322 312 Mr moo moo,

No you do not fucking get it.

You are slip sliding to a fucking totalitarian oligarchy bit by bit because "ity is easier" your wife frankly and I am certain you love her is fucking idiot on firearms, their reason for being in the founding, and the legitimate basis for argument on bans/restrictions/ seizure.

You want to ensure a fucking shooting war in this nation indulge her true impulse and seize 'em all.

The AR-15 is no more or less lethal than any other weapon, and if morons and not our kind are stupid enough to let Mocha Jesus use fear and hysteria to push law abiding Americans to finally say ENOUGH! it is on her head.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:26 PM (LRFds)

323 You guys will never get it.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:24 PM (HDgX3)

You are probalby right. I will never get why you would give up my rights for a little electabiliy.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 02:27 PM (OQpzc)

324 I don't need to argue to the contrary, you need to justify why you get to infringe my Consitutional rights because you've decided something is more powerful than I need.

Who needs something like that? Sound familiar?
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:24 PM (6TB1Z)

I would not try to impose my limit on you. I might try to talk you out of owning a WMD, but that's it.

So, I should clarify: no limits, just think twice about the WMDs.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:28 PM (tBnjP)

325 Well, and after the NYT, and pretty much all the other inside-the-beltway crowd, called the armed-guards-in-schools proposal, by the NRA, crazy — the Times called it “delusional, almost deranged” — President Obama came out with . . . a proposal for armed guards in schools.

Proof positive of ... something

Posted by: Obama's retirement planner at January 19, 2013 02:28 PM (e8kgV)

326 Did the bill of rights disappear 1994-2004?
---
As part of the Patriot Act, I would say partially, yes.

Posted by: sTevo at January 19, 2013 02:28 PM (VMcEw)

327 I would suggest than any body which presumes to do the regulating ought to be the individual states. The Second Amendment more or less implies that such is off limits to the Federal.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:26 PM (bb5+k)Yes. Mr. Moo Moo wants his state to outlaw whatever, I'm fine with that. There are plenty of states left.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:29 PM (jTKU5)

328 See the problem is with states and Obamacare is that they can't pay for it when they are already cash strapped. So in two years the federal funding runs out and the Democrats will be squealing like pigs for more money. And if Washington state voters are one thing, they are NIMBYs of the highest order and love having the bennies without paying for it. When the bills come do, and Obamacare makes it come all the quicker, the bennies will be slashed and the looter class here supporting the democrats will crash.

Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 02:29 PM (yUn2v)

329 You are slip sliding to a fucking totalitarian
oligarchy bit by bit because "ity is easier" your wife frankly and I am
certain you love her is fucking idiot on firearms, their reason for
being in the founding, and the legitimate basis for argument on
bans/restrictions/ seizure.

You want to ensure a fucking shooting war in this nation indulge her true impulse and seize 'em all.

The
AR-15 is no more or less lethal than any other weapon, and if morons
and not our kind are stupid enough to let Mocha Jesus use fear and
hysteria to push law abiding Americans to finally say ENOUGH! it is on
her head.


Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:26 PM (LRFds)

_____________
You are unhinged. Truly.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:30 PM (HDgX3)

330 Seriously, why not a WMD? If you think the 2nd amendment is absolute, why shouldn't WMDs be allowed?


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:08 PM (HDgX3)

Don't know if you like Science Fiction, but in the book "Lucifer's Hammer" that is exactly what they use to save themselves from an army of bad guys. I think that if the Individual States want to allow people to have howitzers, tanks, etc. that ought to be up to the Individual States.

I would suppose the same reasoning ought to apply to other such devices.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:30 PM (bb5+k)

331 And what is the constitutional underpinning behind your banning of my right to a B-52?

Midnight cartridge starts are hell on the neighbors.

Posted by: Fox2! at January 19, 2013 02:30 PM (1Qpmy)

332 again intent.

PA-if I understand your argument, you are against limits on any potentially lethal technology, only on those who might use them. Is that correct?

I just think people should abide by it as a matter of agreement, not law.


Otherwise, the citizenry should have the weaponry their technology can produce.


Well, that at least is an intellectually consistent argument. I disagree with your position, but so far, I can't fault it from a strictly constructionist pov.

there are attorneys who focus on the every day issues of owning guns: inheritance, transfers,

I'd like to hear his arguments about limits on weapons. Again, if you came in late, I'm against gun bans, but if we want to avoid another Akin, we need to be better prepared for these questions, because we will get them. I'm sorry to say the response here so far has not been convincing.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:30 PM (6TB1Z)

333 Begich is an ass. He is just like his old man. Neither one of them has ever understood Alaska or Alaskans, despite having grown up there. He took advantage of the political machine left by his old man, swamping Uncle Ted Stevens in an unfair situation where Ted was accused of something he hadn't done.


I cannot wait for him to be out of work.

Posted by: tcn at January 19, 2013 02:31 PM (ZOUmX)

334 You are slip sliding to a fucking totalitarian
oligarchy bit by bit because "ity is easier" your wife frankly and I am
certain you love her is fucking idiot on firearms, their reason for
being in the founding, and the legitimate basis for argument on
bans/restrictions/ seizure.

You want to ensure a fucking shooting war in this nation indulge her true impulse and seize 'em all.

The
AR-15 is no more or less lethal than any other weapon, and if morons
and not our kind are stupid enough to let Mocha Jesus use fear and
hysteria to push law abiding Americans to finally say ENOUGH! it is on
her head.


Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:26 PM (LRFds)

__________________
It's insane talk like this that weakens your argument. People hear this type of talk and think "what a fucking nutcase". You're doing more harm than good to your cause.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:31 PM (HDgX3)

335 Aren't we done with Moo yet?

Posted by: Guido at January 19, 2013 02:31 PM (XLuH2)

336 320 mr moo Moo,

great nice idea....

I really hate Obama's lies...I guess we'll pass a law saying Sven gets to regulate speech then....so long as I don'tm overabuse it it is all good right?

hey come to think of it why do YOU need ANY 4th amendment protections?

I never owned a goddamned AR-15 until you fuckheads decided they are somehow Magic fucking evil.

You will allow them to destroy ALL liberty economic choice in this nation because "he speaks well and it sounds 'nicer'....

allow Muslims to be imported en mass to start up car-b-qs lest we be 'racist'....

I look forward to our "gentle reminder" we are earning from fate because stupid people will be most harmed and will suffer wondering "how did this happen?"

and the answer dear moo moo is bullshit bargaining like yours based on nothing more than pussy's instincts based on NO FUCKING FACT

Number of murders by stanped legal machine guns last year "between zero and ten"

yeah there you fucking have it....

the "evil of assault rifles"

evil is in men's hearts and actions not technology's marginal increases in efficiency.

I loathe your kind of weak assed "defender of liberty" as much if not perhaps more than the guarded Tyrant like obama and holder because I know to watch thr guarded tyrant like a hawk so I learn his heart but you you their fucking enablers.

you often call me "friend"

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:32 PM (LRFds)

337 Moo Moo, do you think a law-abiding citizen should be able to own a cannon?

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:32 PM (tBnjP)

338
just another jerkoff post

Posted by: soothsayer at January 19, 2013 02:32 PM (/v7wy)

339 Don't know if you like Science Fiction, but in the
book "Lucifer's Hammer" that is exactly what they use to save themselves
from an army of bad guys. I think that if the Individual States want to
allow people to have howitzers, tanks, etc. that ought to be up to the
Individual States.

I would suppose the same reasoning ought to apply to other such devices.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:30 PM (bb5+k)

________
Fair enough. I disagree, but I see your point. But let's not pretend - like so many here do - that banning private ownership of tanks means you can't protect your family.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:33 PM (HDgX3)

340 So do you think Ruger will catch up with orders at some point? I really WANT a 10/22.

Posted by: Guido at January 19, 2013 02:33 PM (XLuH2)

341
Okay, let's be more precise and consider a
nuclear-armed B-52. Again, what is the constitutional argument that
allows you to deny it to me but not an AR?


Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (6TB1Z)

Well,, if you want to get picky, it's not an "arm." (Meaning a weapon intended to be carried by a person.) The Early United States did not regulate individuals ownership of cannons, or armed ships, (in fact they encouraged it in some cases) but what they were specifying in the 2nd amendment was "Arms." (Meaning Weapons carried in the "arms", as the term has long been understood to mean.)



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:33 PM (bb5+k)

342
The AR-15 is legal to own.


I'm still waiting to hear whythis simple rifle called an AR-15 should be outlawed by the federal government nationwide.

I'm also waiting to hear how the millions of copies already legally purchased will be affected by such outlawing.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:33 PM (jTKU5)

343 FWIW, there's a number of jet fighter aircraft in private hands right now...as well as cannon, rocket launchers, etc.

They seem NOT to have been a problem.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:34 PM (3QaxX)

344 337
Moo Moo, do you think a law-abiding citizen should be able to own a cannon?

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:32 PM (tBnjP)

_______________
A working cannon? No. And I don't think it means we are all headed to the gulags if I can't own a cannon.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:34 PM (HDgX3)

345 Please tell me that someone pointed out that machine guns are NOT illegal to own.

Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 02:34 PM (sqp6o)

346 If the moo-troll wants AR-15's banned, he should volunteer to be the first one thru the door of each house from which they're being collected.

Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 02:34 PM (QdUQL)

347 94 Try to think of just one or two important conservative issues that
the Republican Party has truly supported, presented honestly in public,
followed through on, and delivered on (even if it got stopped in the
Senate).


* Repealing ObamaCare
* Passing a budget
* Reforming Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and welfare
* Reforming the tax code
* Building the Keystone Pipeline
* Passing energy legislation

I can think of more, but the point is that they presented and passed a number of conservative bills that were either voted down or stalled by the Senate.

Posted by: 80sBaby at January 19, 2013 02:34 PM (YjDyJ)

348 I never owned a goddamned AR-15 until you fuckheads decided they are somehow Magic fucking evil.

You will allow them to destroy ALL liberty economic choice in this nation because "he speaks well and it sounds 'nicer'....

allow Muslims to be imported en mass to start up car-b-qs lest we be 'racist'....

I
look forward to our "gentle reminder" we are earning from fate because
stupid people will be most harmed and will suffer wondering "how did
this happen?"

and the answer dear moo moo is bullshit bargaining
like yours based on nothing more than pussy's instincts based on NO
FUCKING FACT


yeah there you fucking have it....

the "evil of assault rifles"

evil is in men's hearts and actions not technology's marginal increases in efficiency.

I
loathe your kind of weak assed "defender of liberty" as much if not
perhaps more than the guarded Tyrant like obama and holder because I
know to watch thr guarded tyrant like a hawk so I learn his heart but
you you their fucking enablers.

you often call me "friend"


Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:32 PM (LRFds)

______________
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:35 PM (HDgX3)

349 A working cannon? No. And I don't think it means we are all headed to the gulags if I can't own a cannon.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:34 PM (HDgX3)


This is how we know you don't know what freedom really is.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:35 PM (tBnjP)

350 what they were specifying in the 2nd amendment was "Arms." (Meaning
Weapons carried in the "arms", as the term has long been understood to
mean.)


Interesting. So as so often happens, it comes down to the definition of the word. This is something to build on.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:35 PM (6TB1Z)

351 346
If the moo-troll wants AR-15's banned, he should volunteer to be the
first one thru the door of each house from which they're being
collected.

Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 02:34 PM (QdUQL)

____________
You guys really don't see how talk like this is making you out to sound like deranged lunatics?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:36 PM (HDgX3)

352

if I want election predictions, I'll go to Nate Silver

Posted by: soothsayer at January 19, 2013 02:36 PM (GcwH1)

353 O/T but just saw this on twitter:

Houston waiter refuses to serve customer who insulted Down syndrome boy

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/19/
houston-waiter-refuses-to-serve-customer-who-insulted-down-syndrome-boy/

Restaurant in question is Laurenzo's in case any Houston morons want to patronize them.

Posted by: Y-not at January 19, 2013 02:36 PM (5H6zj)

354
A working cannon? No. And I don't think it means we are all headed to the gulags if I can't own a cannon.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:34 PM (HDgX3)


Why not?

Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 02:36 PM (sqp6o)

355 This is how we know you don't know what freedom really is.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:35 PM (tBnjP)

________
Yes because freedom is the right to be able to blow up my neighbor's house from 1000 feet away. And if I don't have a cannot in my backyard, how will I ever protect my family?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:37 PM (HDgX3)

356 340 Guido,

10/22s are next.

I am barely kidding.

The media will point out the shooter in Europe use .22lr and you can have a 100 rounds of .22 nobody needs 100 rds to shoot a squirrel.

THAT is the problem.

I have harmed fewer people with my rifles than criminals have killed with ballbats. we are slowly becoming England's pussy technocracy where we will begin regulating the acceptable length of butcher's knives lest they be used to 'do evil'

oh no assures Moo moo I'd never let it go that far....

yeah sure you wouldn't sport, sure you wouldn't.

Our bill of rights has been reduced to a slightly musty hopeful on some fucking retarded version of American Idol with the Nightly News and Obama editing the sound during her vocals.

Fuck the gungrabbers.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:37 PM (LRFds)

357 I don't know in what part of Washington state you live in moo moo, but where I live, everyone is a gun nut. My wife is a much stronger supporter of the second amendment than I am, but you cannot give ground on this issue or any others anymore. We have been giving ground for so long that it down to the wire here. Our government is insane and I for one do not want this Leviathan to get any more power.

Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 02:37 PM (yUn2v)

358 that banning private ownership of tanks means you can't protect your family

Private ownership of tanks, artillery pieces, etc and ammunition for them IS NOT BANNED currently.

Where the fuck are you getting your information?!? Someone is lying to you.

I can't recall the last time a legally owned private tank or cannon was used in a crime. Help me out.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:37 PM (3QaxX)

359 Why can't I own a cannon?

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:38 PM (tBnjP)

360 Please tell me that someone pointed out that machine guns are NOT illegal to own.

No, but their ownership is heavily regulated, and for some classes, nigh impossible. I believe this qualifies as "infringement", which the 2A forbids.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:38 PM (6TB1Z)

361
In fact, while picking the most devastating bit
of evidence of national degradation is difficult, especially since 2008,
it is at least arguable that the idiotic voting behavior or MO and IN
voters in 2012, given the obvious stakes, is in the top five. Inertia,
prior prosperity, and its unique place atop the world's fiat monetary
systemwill keep the US from "burning"indefinitely (sorry, LIB'ers). But
the MO and IN Senate outcomes are fairly dispositive evidence that the
unseriousness of the electorate is complete, and beyond hope.


Posted by: non-purist at January 19, 2013 02:13 PM (afQnV)

I agree. Voters should have just ignored those stupid statements by both of those guys. They should have looked at the bigger picture. They didn't, and now it's time for everybody to suffer, even the people who didn't cause these problems.

Thanks idiot voters!!!! I'm going to really enjoy my future of economic and social misery!


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:39 PM (bb5+k)

362 Why not?


****

Oh shit.

Have you been following the comments?

You just started another round.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:39 PM (piMMO)

363 boys, boys...

Posted by: Jones in CO at January 19, 2013 02:39 PM (8sCoq)

364 348 mr moo moo,

I know you don't. The notion that the price of freedom is the bearing of things you yourself might find odious I grasp it escapes you. Your lack of understanding the point is precisely why you are unqualified to be the national gun buyer and preference quality control officer.

Have a day

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:39 PM (LRFds)

365 Private ownership of tanks, artillery pieces, etc and ammunition for them IS NOT BANNED currently.

Where the fuck are you getting your information?!? Someone is lying to you.

I can't recall the last time a legally owned private tank or cannon was used in a crime. Help me out.


Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:37 PM (3QaxX)

__________
OK. I want to buy a tank. Who do I call?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:39 PM (HDgX3)

366 I'm not going to attack my neighbors.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:40 PM (tBnjP)

367 You want a cannon?

http://bit.ly/WOyDnv

Get one of these.

Posted by: sTevo at January 19, 2013 02:40 PM (VMcEw)

368 Private ownership of tanks, artillery pieces, etc and ammunition for them IS NOT BANNED currently.

Cool. I want an MLRS because my neighbor is a real tool.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:40 PM (6TB1Z)

369

He's just evading now because he can't answer why an AR-15 should be banned nationwide, and he can't answer how he will get them all away from those who already own them.

Fuck him. I am not impressed by the argument that I sound like a lunatic for asking these questions.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:41 PM (jTKU5)

370 Thanks idiot voters!!!! I'm going to really enjoy my future of economic and social misery!


****

Idiot voters, indeed.

I REFUSE to ever use the term "Low-info voters".

Information is not lacking. Their willingness to engage and take any fucking responsibility whatsoever for their vote is the real issue.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:41 PM (piMMO)

371 No, but their ownership is heavily regulated, and
for some classes, nigh impossible. I believe this qualifies as
"infringement", which the 2A forbids.


Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:38 PM (6TB1Z)

__________________OH MY GOD!! We've been living under tyranny for the past 30 years. Nooooooooooo!

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:41 PM (HDgX3)

372 some Claymore mines would be cool

Posted by: Jones in CO at January 19, 2013 02:42 PM (8sCoq)

373 What? Defending our Constitutional rights a little too messy for your preening lifestyle?

Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 02:42 PM (QdUQL)

374 Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:39 PM (piMMO)


Oops. Sorry.

Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 02:42 PM (sqp6o)

375 He's just evading now because he can't answer why an
AR-15 should be banned nationwide, and he can't answer how he will get
them all away from those who already own them.

Fuck him. I am not impressed by the argument that I sound like a lunatic for asking these questions.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:41 PM (jTKU5)

________
You aren't a lunatic for asking this question. You are a lunatic for implying that if an Ar15 ban happened, you wouldn't give it up without a fight.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:42 PM (HDgX3)

376 I did point out machine guns are legal to own, I linked to a sight on it that links to the law.

they simply do not give a shit.

Point out they are not full auto.

so what?

point out that the mag ban is not effective

so what?

We MUST DO SOMETHING!

Yeah about that...this is hardly the first school massacre let alone mass murder using firearms in the King's reign....Chicago is a goddamned bloodbath daily.....

why is Ogabe ONLY now getting around to doing this after being safely reelected?

Are those kids magic kids that make them more valuable than black youth in Chicago?

He is "more flexible" and we have self-described 'GOP voters' getting their panties moist to aid him in testing his "flexibility"

"Good luck"

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:43 PM (LRFds)

377 http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/products/tanks-2/su-100-62#currency=USD

In fact you can buy a tank in Germany, the UK and the US.

Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 02:43 PM (NbhlJ)

378 Do we have phased plasma rifles yet?

PA probably has a few.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:43 PM (tBnjP)

379 Here is my reasoning on the matter.

If there is going to be any enforceable rule of law at all, the government must possess the ability to arrest and detain any citizen, even well armed citizens. Otherwise there cannot be civil society, Constitution or not. So that in my mind justifies some justifiable limit on the Second Amendment to ban things like tanks and WMDs, which would enable ordinary citizens to become militarily competitive with a proper government enforcing the rule of law.

I think there is a justifiably gray area in between the two extremes of "pea shooters" and "nuclear bombs", but it does eliminate the stupid rhetorical gimmick of "hey, why can't private citizens own nukes, you gun nuts???"

Posted by: chemjeff at January 19, 2013 02:43 PM (BBWjt)

380 You guys will never get it.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:24 PM (HDgX3)


What if the entire freedom loving world was fucked up except for you? Would that tell you something?

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 02:44 PM (l86i3)

381 OK. I want to buy a tank. Who do I call?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:39 PM (HDgX3) _ ____ ____ _ _You call any one of the thousands of people who own, trade and sell them. They are all over the country. My Dad has a book full of them, and the owners and their locations are named in the book. There are clubs of people that own them all over the country.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:44 PM (jTKU5)

382 372 Jones in CO,

You can legally own claymore mines.

Expensive habit but it can be done.

Again your point?

A nefarious person can use the cleaning aisle at Kroger to kill the whole store....

I know we need suds control.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:44 PM (LRFds)

383
this thread is a perfect example of why Republicans in office ignore their own base more and more each day

Posted by: soothsayer at January 19, 2013 02:44 PM (8dspl)

384 Private companies also make M16 which are explicitly
unlawful to own by citizens. I'm not sure what your point is. The final
product is illegal. The final product - a WMD - is illegal as well.
The
absolutists here say NOTHING should be illegal. I want to know if that
means I should have the right to walk into a Cabelas and walk out with a
nuclear warhead. Why or why not?


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:16 PM (HDgX3)

Owning an M16 is not illegal. I know several people who own them. It is just a pain in the neck to get the Federal Firearms license necessary to do so.

I have personally fired several different types of machine guns (all legally owned by private citizens) and it was a great bit of fun. One of the most interesting was a .45 caliber paratrooper gun (with serial numbered matching silencer) from World War II. It fired rather slow, and with the silencer on it, the loudest thing you could hear was the large heavy bolt clacking back and forth, but it was still fun to shoot.
Honestly, I could easily fire any semi-automatic weapon at a faster rate than this old .45 caliber Paratrooper sub-machine gun could fire.

But to re-iterate, if you didn't know it, it *IS* legal for private citizens to own fully automatic machine guns. Get on you tube and type in machine guns and I bet you'll find hundreds of clips of people having fun with them.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:45 PM (bb5+k)

385 Mr Moo moo my high school Chemistry teacher owned a fully functional m3 Grant tank....

OH NO OH NO the mere ownership of a military like device caused him to take over town!

Whatever asshole go vote democrat

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:46 PM (LRFds)

386 A fish caught for control near the central nuclear accident in Fukushima has an impressive level of radioactive contamination over 2500 times the legal limit set by the Japan , announced Friday, January 18, the operator of site.

The company Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) said to have measured a fish called "murasoi" amount of radioactive cesium equal to 254,000 becquerels per kilogram, or 2540 times the limit of 100 becquerels / kg set for seafood by the government.

Fish, close rockfish was caught in the bay near the central Fukukshima Daiichi , victim, March 11, 2011, a massive tsunami that devastated four of the six reactors, dispersing in the nature of large quantities of radioactive substances.

Posted by: Robert Oppenheimer at January 19, 2013 02:46 PM (e8kgV)

387
Want a tank?


Try E-Bay.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 19, 2013 02:46 PM (SAMxH)

388 I think there is a justifiably gray area in between
the two extremes of "pea shooters" and "nuclear bombs", but it does
eliminate the stupid rhetorical gimmick of "hey, why can't private
citizens own nukes, you gun nuts???"


Posted by: chemjeff at January 19, 2013 02:43 PM (BBWjt)

__________
I didn't bring up nukes. One of the "gun nuts" did saying he would allow any weapon to be owned EXCEPT WMDs. I just asked why stop at WMDs?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:46 PM (HDgX3)

389 Posted by: chemjeff at January 19, 2013 02:43 PM (BBWjt)

Your formula also secures the government's ability to impose tyranny without fear of failure.

Best to err on the side of freedom, I say.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:46 PM (tBnjP)

390

Still waiting to hear why the gun should be banned.


Still waiting to hear how you confiscate all of them after the banning.

I don't own one, Moo, so I won't be barricading the house over the question.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:47 PM (jTKU5)

391 Moo moo,

Don't forget to change your drawers after this...


http://tinyurl.com/ado9ad4


PSH. !!!!!!

Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 02:47 PM (sqp6o)

392 Whatever asshole go vote democrat


Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:46 PM (LRFds)

_________
And Republicans wonder why they keep losing elections......

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:47 PM (HDgX3)

393 Moo Moo, when the government can go after someone just for posting an inflammatory video on the internet and then choose not to prosecute someone waving around illegal ammunition on live TV, yes I would say that is definitely not an example of a Democratic Republic but more like a tyrannical dictatorship. We are governed by personalities and political parties, not laws in this country (much more visibly at the federal level).

Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 02:47 PM (yUn2v)

394 You aren't a lunatic for asking this question. You are a lunatic for implying that if an Ar15 ban happened, you wouldn't give it up without a fight.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:42 PM (HDgX3)

Didn't say right. I said ability you lying tool.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 02:47 PM (OQpzc)

395 OH NO OH NO the mere ownership of a military like device caused him to take over town!

***

Well, if you live in a college town, it could be an issue.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:47 PM (piMMO)

396
Do we have phased plasma rifles yet?

Why do you need anything above a 15-watt? These 40-watt rangers are excessively powerful.

Plus, they're all black.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at January 19, 2013 02:48 PM (yiIja)

397
I'm curious to see who the repubs run against Begich. And I don't underestimate the stupidity of people. I have a feeling Begich will get a second term if the repubs don't get their shit together up here.

Posted by: Bosk at January 19, 2013 02:48 PM (QkFee)

398 383 soothsayer,

they know they can count on part of us and perhaps the majority to be tyrrany's enablers.

Yup you're dead on and I am not the gun nut I appear in this thread but the arguments the 'just the tip' apologists are using are not based on reason, results, or critical thinking they are based on "arbogate liberty Barry you will just use the tip won't you?'


No sorry.

I don't own ANY "machine guns" nor would I I don't feel my potential life merits the extra tax....

I would not deny anyone the right to legally own them however.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:48 PM (LRFds)

399 If there is going to be any enforceable rule of law at all, the
government must possess the ability to arrest and detain any citizen,
even well armed citizens. Otherwise there cannot be civil society,
Constitution or not. So that in my mind justifies some justifiable limit
on the Second Amendment


Excellent. Again, progress is being made. Now, isn't there an inherent conflict between this ability to enforce the law, and your ability to resist tyranny by using your own weapons against an overweening government, an argument we hear a lot these days? How do we resolve this dilemma?

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:48 PM (6TB1Z)

400 I do not own any guns.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:49 PM (tBnjP)

401 359
Why can't I own a cannon?


You can. Its just an ordinary Class III "destructive device".

It'll get interesting when rail guns start to appear...since they don't "expel" the "projectile" using "explosives" or "propellants".

Under current law, a fully automatic rail gun has no more restriction placed on it than a Splatmaster paint ball gun.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:49 PM (3QaxX)

402 http://media.beta.photobucket.com/user/passat25/media/christina-hendricks-bus.gif.html?filters[term]=christina%20hendricks%20laughing%20gif&filters[primary]=images

Posted by: Mr. Wears a Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:49 PM (HDgX3)

403
I hate it.

How do we change it?









Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 02:22 PM (fH4X9)

By refusing to use it, by objecting to it every time we encounter it. In fact, it gives us an opportunity to remind everyone that "Red" is the color of the Communists, and therefore ought to be applied to the American Version of the communists e.g. the "Democrats!"

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:49 PM (bb5+k)

404 Well, if you live in a college town, it could be an issue.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:47 PM (piMMO)

The liberal arts building would be an easy and target rich enviroment.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 02:49 PM (l86i3)

405 So far so good, Eh, I heard that before with Mittens, demographics beware..In a perfect world we could vote er ah flush the flotsam and jetsam ....

Posted by: Clemenza at January 19, 2013 02:49 PM (x59Gv)

406

He wants it banned when much more dangerous things arent, andcan't answer why.


I think the discussion is over.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:50 PM (jTKU5)

407 I see eman beat me to it on @389.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:50 PM (6TB1Z)

408 So every home should have a howitzer and B52, just in case.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:49 PM (HDgX3)


Hooray! Welcome back to the fold.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 02:50 PM (l86i3)

409 395 NDH,

yeah most especially if God forbid he ever left the barn door's unlocked....

this is the silliest of self-indulgence on the part of soi-called 'Republicans" or lovers of "liberty" to set themselves up as "I am smart enough to make the judgement call for ALL all at once!"

I would not own a claymore around the house my rodents are not that big, I can build an IED if need be I have made and used napalm as a cleaning agent to remove gum from asphalt....

OH NO OH NO! Sven is EVIL!

Yeah I guess so....

thank god no American kids ever experimented with recreational use of say nail polish remover, or potato guns....

who the fuck are we becoming?

My dad used dynamite to clear tree stumps...

"moderate" "lovers of freedom" make me sick

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:51 PM (LRFds)

410 Just get the proper FFL , everybody apply for a FFL, Morons flood fed facilitys for FFL licenses read all about it!!!!

Posted by: Clemenza at January 19, 2013 02:51 PM (x59Gv)

411 383 this thread is a perfect example of why Republicans in office ignore their own base more and more each day

Posted by: soothsayer at January 19, 2013 02:44 PM (8dspl)

------

Eh? Which part?

And, itsounds like you think that ignoring us...is a good thing.
They ignore their base at their own peril.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 02:51 PM (fH4X9)

412 der

Posted by: Honey Boo Boo at January 19, 2013 02:51 PM (HDgX3)

413 http://www.military-vehicles.us/military-tanks-for-sale.shtml


Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:52 PM (3QaxX)

414 Re: Why no nukes: Because don't be a fucking asshole high school debaters. No one serious is going to want nukes, so it's not a matter of serious discussion. It's only an argumentative trick, like the whole "banning condoms" thing.

There's a point at which "rational" definition is inadequate because we all to some extent live life "irrationally" ["scare quotes" because defining "rational" is hard]

So every debate this like is something like the pornography debate where you just have to culturally "know it when you see it". The line is drawn not according to absolute principles, but according to what the people agree is acceptable. Normally, this process takes a long time, as popular opinions change gradually. But the Left tries to force the change through schools and media brainwashing and propaganda.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at January 19, 2013 02:53 PM (Y5I9o)

415 412 who said anything about winning anything , just bogg everything down deep IYKWIM

Posted by: Clemenza at January 19, 2013 02:53 PM (x59Gv)

416 They ignore their base at their own peril.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 02:51 PM (fH4X9)

If only. Dbags like boner and King keep getting elected.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (OQpzc)

417 No matter what arsenal of weapons you have in your home, you're not going to win a fight against the US military

In asymmetric war you never fight to win. You fight to make it too costly for the other side to persist.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (3QaxX)

418 http://s1086.beta.photobucket.com/user/wetpaintpod1/media/tumblr_mamsa9TNYp1qzv1s2o1_400_zps8379f9fd.gif.html

Posted by: Honey Boo Boo at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (HDgX3)

419 If someone wants to own a howitzer or a tank or a B52, let them. Just like if someone wants to eat Big Macs everyday until their heart gives out, that's fine too. It should not be our job to fund/approve of everything you do.

Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (yUn2v)

420 401 Purple Avenger,

quite and of course because the tyrannical left refuses to accept we WILL OWn guns and we will fight against tyranny so let it the fuck go....

we will have a hell of a fight on it and they will be unregulated for longer than they should because if there is one lesson that is integral to the American experiment it is never trust power totally.

That does not make me paranoid it makes me a free citizen.

Paranoid is not trusting your mayor and trying to have a private militia because of zoning laws.....not fearing a govt that micromanages toilet capacity, and light bulbs.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (LRFds)

421
The burden, obviously, is on those who would fashion acceptable limits on constitutionally-granted rights (and recall the entire purpose of the constitution, aside from organizational details, is to limit the state's purview).

Those who, because they aren't very bright, or very American, or able to withstand social pressures from family or the clueless masses or pop culture, want to throw logic and the constitution and history to the wind, are not commies (just as Bambi and his ilk are not commies - the pernicious and failed commie thing actually has - fake - intellectual under-pinnings that are a dozen levels above their intellectual pay grade - you don't have to have actually listened to lectures in Russian at Leningrad State U. in a hall adorned with red banners proclaiming all the idiotic slogans of the Bolshevik revolution, or read Marx's pre-Manifesto essays in German, to have SOME intellectual grasp of the idiocy of that preposterous ideology ..... but to suggest that the president or any of the current political class, esp. on "the left", have the slightest idea about what Marxism or communism were is absurd).

I don't really want to get into a mud fight with other commenters, but our friend here who keeps hopping around from premise to premise and line or argument to line of argument sort of telegraphed how serious his perspective was when he mentioned how "easy it was for us to be painted as extremists" (approx. quote). Uh huh. Cretins who believe in environmental lysenkoism, and think that race should be the organizing principle of law and society, and that stuffing surviving aborted kids in closets to die is OK, and that 1% of the populace should both create all the wealth and take all the risks AND pay all the taxes, and that unemployment insurance creates jobs, of course have no trouble painting as "extremists" people who correctly observe that semi-automatic rifles are not a significant factor in any crime or other social ill. I get it.

Ironically, it looks like the last surviving pocket of rational and American (historically speaking, in the best sense) political behavior centers around firearms and the 2A. The "beliefs" of the gun grabbers are just as idiotic as their beliefs that now prevail on racism as a substitute for rule of law, global friendliness towards fascism and genocide, economics, and other issues - but for a variety of reasons they will not prevail here.

But meanwhile, reserve a little pity for those so unfortunate as to be saddled with friends, spouses, or family who hold these idiotic beliefs (really just bigotry and ignorance inspiring authoritarian impulses, more than beliefs), and lack the will, dignity, or responsibility to nuke them (educate them) and instead beclown themselves pleading with their political allies to agree to absurd actions so as not to be painted as "extremists".

Posted by: non-purist at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (afQnV)

422 Damnit.

I forgot the link earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dHPs_PzL_k

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:55 PM (piMMO)

423
I loved that movie...'Tank'...where James Garner rescued his son with his tank.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 02:55 PM (fH4X9)

424 Here's the interesting point to this. The people who are the loudest defenders of gun ownership tend to also be the biggest fans of a strong military. They fear tyranny from the military yet support expanding the power and reach of the military.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (HDgX3)

You would be wrong. I'd like to see the army defunded. All of it.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 02:56 PM (OQpzc)

425 Dangit, Honey Boo boo!

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:56 PM (piMMO)

426 418 Mr moo moo,

The military is a vital and necessary role defined in the Constitution.

Glean the founder's thoughts and fears on military power.

I am ex-infantry, and if the military is ever a force of tyranny and there is any chance to resist I will fight it.

That is my duty by my oath.

If you cannot grasp the duality do me the favor of not expecting me to defer liberty's guardian status to you.

Thanks

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:56 PM (LRFds)

427 http://s1086.beta.photobucket.com/user/wetpaintpod1/media/tumblr_mamsa9TNYp1qzv1s2o1_400_zps8379f9fd.gif.html

Posted by: Honey Boo Boo at January 19, 2013 02:56 PM (HDgX3)

428 No matter what arsenal of weapons you have in your home, you're not going to win a fight against the US military. Which is why this argument is so foolish with regards to assault weapon bans.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:51 PM (HDgX3)

There are many possible scenarios and outcomes.

An armed citizenry has a chance to secure its freedom, and unarmed one has none.

Folks here don't think they can duke it out with the 101st in a fair fight. That's not what this is all about. Your mind is so enmeshed in wrong ideas you can't see any possibilities except the ones visible through small holes.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:57 PM (tBnjP)

429 Fair enough. I disagree, but I see your point. But
let's not pretend - like so many here do - that banning private
ownership of tanks means you can't protect your family.


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:33 PM (HDgX3)

The ability to protect your family is an ancillary purpose to the Second Amendment. The Primary purpose is to Protect your community and your state from a Tyrannical Federal Government. Read the Federalist papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers for more insight on what they intended when they created the Second Amendment.
To Reiterate, the Federalist papers imply that people need guns to protect their families, but the Second Amendment out and out states that keeping the people armed is "necessary to the security of a Free State."

The Fed-Gov has ALWAYS been the primary target of the Second Amendment.
Remember, all the amendments were created because of the concern that the Newly Created Fed-Gov was too powerful, and that many founders wanted specific rights spelled out.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:57 PM (bb5+k)

430 I can't disagree with this.
But let's say tomorrow Obama decided he wants to go full blown totalitarian. Do you think having an AR15 vs. not having one would make much of a difference? Let's be realistic here. No matter what arsenal of weapons you have in your home, you're not going to win a fight against the US military. Which is why this argument is so foolish with regards to assault weapon bans.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:51 PM (HDgX3)


Yes it would. The 5.56 round is a standard round that many can reload. You mock a major civil disruption. I don't know what kind of Pollyana fkn world you live in but when our military turns on itself, our LEOs say fk it i'm taking care of my own and there you are with your dick in your hand, you remember this thread.

This is not a joke. These people that wish to ensalve us are real and have written and spoke of their intentions. They are in the government now. Wake up, gather all means of self defense, I mean ALL means. Nothing is off the table, nothing.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 02:57 PM (l86i3)

431 In asymmetric war you never fight to win. You fight to make it too costly for the other side to persist.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (3QaxX)

Just blow the bridges and let the cities starve. Should take about a month. Just in time delivery is a boon and a curse for the filthy, evil cities.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 02:57 PM (OQpzc)

432 424 Invictus,

I'm slowly getting there.

Giggles won't use it to defend our interests, we are training terrorists that kill our diplomats diminishing our perceived power, and a populace that cannot endure our losses in Iraq and 'ghani without going emo is not going to bear the retaliatory costs of the use of a strategic WMD once we get hit.

It is largely now wasted money thanks to the media.

I will be actively cheering for the media to get killed overseas by their pets the terrorists now.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:58 PM (LRFds)

433 http://s1086.beta.photobucket.com/user/wetpaintpod1/media/tumblr_mamsa9TNYp1qzv1s2o1_400_zps8379f9fd.gif.html

Posted by: Honey Boo Boo at January 19, 2013 02:58 PM (HDgX3)

434 Just blow the bridges and let the cities starve. Should take about a
month. Just in time delivery is a boon and a curse for the filthy, evil
cities.


Ah, so you're a Jeffersonian.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:59 PM (6TB1Z)

435 In asymmetric war you never fight to win. You fight to make it too costly for the other side to persist.


****

You should've socked Reagan on this one.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:59 PM (piMMO)

436
Full auto machine guns, legal. Tanks, legal, Cannons, legal.

Semi-auto rifle: BAN!

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:59 PM (jTKU5)

437 Here's a good example of why the base gets ignored: Indiana

Murdock (whom I know personally from years ago and is a nice man) beat Lugar, who has border-line dementia but always has that goofy Howdy Doody grin on his face. This was done with the support of the Tea Party, who wanted some fiscal responsibility.

In the GENERAL election, however, the democrats ran Joe Donnelly, a jolly Notre Dame graduate who made a big deal of his Irish heritage and moderate position.

Murdock, unfortunately, could not manage to smile through most of the campaign and projected a rather dour personna. I am certain that the Catholic vote mostly went to Donnelly, and this was probably why Murdock went all-in on the abortion issue during the debate. (You will notice Mike Pence worked awfully hard at NOT putting his foot in his mouth and stuck to local economic issues.)

Maybe we should have run Lugar and then gotten him to retire and hold a special election. I do think he would have beaten Donnelly. We had some Lugar supporters who refused to vote for Murdock. So now what we are stuck with is that people think the Tea Party doesn't know what it's doing.


Posted by: Miss Marple at January 19, 2013 03:00 PM (GoIUi)

438 I am now beyond the belief that Mr. Moo can be persuaded or is worth the extra effort.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:00 PM (piMMO)

439 http://s1086.beta.photobucket.com/user/wetpaintpod1/media/tumblr_mamsa9TNYp1qzv1s2o1_400_zps8379f9fd.gif.html

Posted by: Honey Boo Boo at January 19, 2013 03:00 PM (HDgX3)

440 Stossel on FNC now. The topic of the show is 'Texas vs California'

Should be a good one!

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:01 PM (piMMO)

441 Ah, so you're a Jeffersonian.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:59 PM (6TB1Z)

I always thought I was a Jacksonian.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:02 PM (OQpzc)

442 Backtracking, then running away, a great strategy for me.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 03:02 PM (HDgX3)

443 Stossel on FNC now. The topic of the show is 'Texas vs California'

Should be a good one!
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:01 PM (piMMO)

Saw it, it's good.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:02 PM (l86i3)

444 Here's the interesting point to this. The people who are the loudest defenders of gun ownership tend to also be the biggest fans of a strong military. They fear tyranny from the military yet support expanding the power and reach of the military.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (HDgX3)


-------------------------------------------------


You're really reaching now. Having said that, I do believe our military is being slowly but surely taken over by leftist minions and is becoming no longer the military that will defend our principles. Homeland security forces, anyone?

I want to have the means to defend myself against them. That means having modern, up to date arms. The more lethal, the better. Having these arms gives us the ability to access the weapons the would make our fight more even.

Once again, the 2d Amendment isn't there for home protection, hunting, or sport shooting. It's there to protect us from tyranny. And tyranny has got it's foot in the door of our country now.

Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 03:03 PM (Z/SJ5)

445 A working cannon? No. And I don't think it means we are all headed to the gulags if I can't own a cannon.


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:34 PM (HDgX3)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are plenty of people who own cannons. Every Year they have Cannon Shoot contests at Ft. Sill for various groups who bring in their own privately owned cannons. Many of them are Civil War re-enactors, some are US Horse Cavalry re-enactors, and so on. Ft. Sill Army Soldiers often competes with them using their own Military Half-Section re-enactors.





Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 03:03 PM (bb5+k)

446 Why do you NEED to enjoy a sunny winter day?

Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 03:04 PM (sqp6o)

447 The stealth troll departs.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 03:04 PM (tBnjP)

448 I always thought I was a Jacksonian.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:02 PM (OQpzc)


I'm a Jacksonian, Eurocentric Xenophobic believer in Manifest Destiny MFr. It aint changin.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:04 PM (l86i3)

449 Why do you NEED to enjoy a sunny winter day?


****

I never, EVER do this, but.....


thread winner

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:05 PM (piMMO)

450 All I know is I'm happy to wait for LIB until Obama is out of office.

Seriously. I think the country is gone, but I'd like as much time as possible to prepare. If Obama gets the House again, does anyone think his last two years will be anything but a naked attempt to install tyranny?

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at January 19, 2013 03:05 PM (Y5I9o)

451

"And for the record I have said numerous times I don't want to ban any guns. I am saying - AGAIN - the AR15 is a political loser for the Republican Party. It's a stupid hill to die on."


Finally, there's his answer. Ban it because it's a political loser.

Which is wrong also. The NRA is polling higher than Obama right now. Obama did his EOs because he knows congress won't pass any gun bans.

You are wrong on all counts, Moo. Work to ban it in your state if it scares you.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 03:06 PM (jTKU5)

452 What would happen if someone wanted to limit the pursuit of happiness as a matter of law?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:06 PM (piMMO)

453 430 OldSailor's Poet,

Oh now Obama was misunderstod all thos times in his past that he speaks of enforced redistribution being moral, or wanting guns banned, or his buddy Bill Ayers says he wants to murder 25,000,000 capitalists.....

I take people at their word, were I to threaten Obama Ace would ban me, report me to the Secret Service and I would be dealt with.

None of you would be too bothered, and I would bear social costs all my life.

I would be held responsible for my rhetoric as it were, the thing is that not only am I leery of such cost I am intelligent enough to know that harming Obama would be stupid and hurt America deeply no matter how irksome I consider him or dangerous his reign because it would poison reachable people and undermine the fabric of the collective whole's ability to ever find common ground.

Undo his works?

Until the end of time, but political violence is stupid and not something to be bug chased.

The right holds most of its bad actors in check.

An actual domestic terrorist like bill Ayers has the case spoiled by the FBI on purpose in some eyes, his father shepherds him back into society, he speaks of killing megadeaths of opponents never renouncing his hyperbole AND he engages in oversight of school curricula now.

The left promotes its bad actors as far as it can.

The difference is killing us.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 03:07 PM (LRFds)

454 #452
You don't NEED that much happiness.

Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 03:07 PM (NbhlJ)

455 OK. I want to buy a tank. Who do I call?


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:39 PM (HDgX3)

How much money have you got to spend? You can get em, but they cost a lot to purchase and move. A lot of people get old Soviet stuff. I bet you can buy one from Afghanistan all day long.





Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 03:07 PM (bb5+k)

456 Moo. Didn't your wife tell you what you should think? You stay home and put her on next time.

Posted by: Guido at January 19, 2013 03:07 PM (XLuH2)

457 I'm a Jacksonian, Eurocentric Xenophobic believer in Manifest Destiny MFr. It aint changin.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:04 PM (l86i3)

And when the Jeffersonians fuck things up, we are pissed we have to take action. So, we reluctantly take the rifle from over the fireplace and take the most direct, non-pc action needed to end the threat.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:08 PM (OQpzc)

458
OK, can't resist.

No wonder the GOP loses elections.

Meaning, "gun control" has cost the GOP elections? Sheesh, news to me. Which races? What were the 2A-related exit poll numbers showing why the GOP candidate lost?

And sorry to say it, but someone with such a comprehensive ignorance of constitutional law and jurisprudence, and firearms, and BATFE regs, and apparently even politics, might consider studying up before beclowning themselves "arguing" about something like "gun control". Not that such ignorance and bigotry are rare - on the contrary (obviously). But dude, it's pretty sad when you sound like the clueless idiots who give us fiscal insanity, lawlessness, global incompetence, and statesmen like Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, Obama, and Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: non-purist at January 19, 2013 03:08 PM (afQnV)

459 Hmmm.....




Raleigh, N.C. — At least two people
were injured Saturday afternoon in an apparent accidental shooting at
the gun show being held at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds.
Emergency crews responded to the scene shortly after 1 p.m., and two people were loaded into ambulances.
A
witness told WRAL that a gun went off after being checked by an
official at a safety check-in location, hitting a man in the hand and a
woman in the side.


Hope no morons were there....the HQ kind.




http://tinyurl.com/aypz6z5

Posted by: Tami at January 19, 2013 03:08 PM (X6akg)

460 451 meremortal,

Correct the "good answer" is to tell the gunowners who are already angry at "go along at any price I am sure he'll be nice to us soon!" Republicans to cave on the one issue that does cross party lines and is in the bill of rights and polls better than obama....

"yeah'

The GOP caves on guns I quit not because I am a gun nut but because at that point why have one?

If they can't stand on THIS there is NOTHING of principle worth saving anymore.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 03:08 PM (LRFds)

461 440 Stossel on FNC now. The topic of the show is 'Texas vs California'
Should be a good one!


Yeah, it's a good one, NDH.

I watched a preview of a new Documentary called...'Detropia'.
No way I'm going to pay $4.99 to order it OnDemand.

But the gist of it seemed to be....blame the fall of Detroit, on "They".

There were people saying..."They shipped our jobs away".
And..."They are bulldozing down our vacant buildings".

Wtf?
Detroit is a perfect example of what Democrats in power, will do to a city.
And they're trying to blame it on....someone else.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 03:09 PM (fH4X9)

462 I'm a Jacksonian, Eurocentric Xenophobic believer in Manifest Destiny MFr. It aint changin.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:04 PM (l86i3)

And when the Jeffersonians fuck things up, we are pissed we have to take action. So, we reluctantly take the rifle from over the fireplace and take the most direct, non-pc action needed to end the threat.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:08 PM (OQpzc)


Amen my brother.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:09 PM (l86i3)

463 These comments are so wide

Posted by: phoenixgirl so done with the GOP at January 19, 2013 03:09 PM (uxUIu)

464 John E. and BCochran are at the Jax gun show this weekend.

I hope they pick up some nice, new toys.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:11 PM (piMMO)

465 this thread is a perfect example of why Republicans in office ignore their own base more and more each day





Posted by: soothsayer at January 19, 2013 02:44 PM (8dspl)

To be fair, we are just the most vocal and outraged members of the base. Others feel the same way we do, but perhaps don't feel the need to express so much passion on the subject.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 03:11 PM (bb5+k)

466 These comments are so wide
Posted by: phoenixgirl so done with the GOP at January 19, 2013 03:09 PM (uxUIu)


And deep. :-)

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:11 PM (l86i3)

467 I see I can buy an old Russian diesel sub for a bargain. I'm betting if I greased a few palms, I could get some torpedos for it, too.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:11 PM (OQpzc)

468 And I am marking you as someone who is incapable of critical thinking.
You
know who told me repeatedly who the fuck needs an AR-15? You know who
has no problem requiring people to register guns and/or get a gun
license? My wife. I always look to her for the "common man" view of
things. She's apolitical generally. She only votes Republican because
she knows it will make me happy. And to her and her friends the idea of
an AR-15 is fucking insane, even though they have no problems with the
right to own guns in general. You may not agree with it. You may think
it's unconstitutional. That's all fine and good. But politically
speaking, it's hurting both the GOP and gun rights in general since now
gun rights = right to own an AR-15.



Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:34 PM (HDgX3)


Sounds like you had better uninstall wife 1.0 and upgrade to girlfriend 2.0.Oh yeah, grow some nads, too.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at January 19, 2013 03:12 PM (673KB)

469 I see I can buy an old Russian diesel sub for a bargain. I'm betting if I greased a few palms, I could get some torpedos for it, too.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:11 PM (OQpzc)

And vic could prolly run it for you.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:12 PM (l86i3)

470 Wtf?
Detroit is a perfect example of what Democrats in power, will do to a city.
And they're trying to blame it on....someone else.


***

THEY were pushing for the county to absorb Detroit and the county said no fucking way, dude!

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:12 PM (piMMO)

471 455 Diogenes Lamp,

It's being coy or pretending it made a point.


I'll tell you who to call.

http://www.jeepcity.co.uk/id2.html


don't want to import it from England?

http://www.military-vehicles.us/military-tanks-for-sale.shtml

You can get T-90s all the way to M-1s

It is hard to get NATO tanks but you can get a T-72 for depending on generation 75,000 to 450,000....

Buyer beware and they are high cost to maintain in readiness.....


Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 03:12 PM (LRFds)

472 I hope they pick up some nice, new toys.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:11 PM (piMMO)

Jan. 26th here in Austin. The commies in the local .gov made noises about banning gun shows, but AG Abbot told them he'd step in them.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:13 PM (OQpzc)

473 Jan. 26th here in Austin. The commies in the local .gov made noises about banning gun shows, but AG Abbot told them he'd step in them.

****

Abbot is one to keep our eyes on.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:14 PM (piMMO)

474 462 OSP,

I'm a Jeffersonian at heart for my personal life I accept the need for some Hamiltonian ideals on commerce but yeah.

If we can't trust our politicians to use the military well then only have it when needed.

I think we're finally there.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 03:14 PM (LRFds)

475 So lemme get this straight. You want to ban so called assault weapons BUT we will grandfather you in. BULLSHIT!! If they are worth banning then you Libs must confiscate them cause what keeps someone from stealing one then going out to kill?

Contrary to that West Point report, Coservatives are forward thinking. We want the 2nd Amendment to apply to our future generations not just " oh well we got ours." That's Liberal thinking.

Posted by: Hanoverfist at January 19, 2013 03:15 PM (P608G)

476 NDH --- do you still have the keys to the blog? I hate it when we get all fat like this. This should be fixable. CAC? PurpAv? CBD?

Posted by: L, elle at January 19, 2013 03:16 PM (0PiQ4)

477 Hey, CAC...

Any chance you could start using a different color on your maps, for the conservative states?
Instead of Red?

I vote for...green.
Heh, that would give the liberals heartburn.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 03:16 PM (fH4X9)

478 I don't agree with Mr. Moo Moo's position against AR-15s, but so far, the relevant arguments against ownership of WMD are the definition of "arms" (Diogenes Lamp) and the need for the government to have decisive force at its disposal (ChemJeff, who unfortunately seems to have left). There are problems with both, IMO, but they may be surmountable.

To the cob-loggers: Can we revisit this thread after we've all had time for reflection, and see if we can improve the arguments. Otherwise, I fear another Akin moment.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 03:16 PM (6TB1Z)

479 NDH --- do you still have the keys to the blog? I hate it when we get all fat like this. This should be fixable. CAC? PurpAv? CBD?

***

I do, but I believe CAC is still on with us.

CAC?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:17 PM (piMMO)

480 Just blow the bridges and let the cities starve. Should take about a month

NYC starts starving within a few days if the trucks stop rolling.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 03:17 PM (3QaxX)

481 Sounds like you had better uninstall wife 1.0 and upgrade to girlfriend 2.0.Oh yeah, grow some nads, too.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at January 19, 2013 03:12 PM (673KB)


-------------------------------------------------


The moo-troll and his wife are probably curled up in their footy 'jamas watching re-runs of the Kardashians.She'stelling him what to type.

Moo-troll: Yes, dear......

Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 03:17 PM (Z/SJ5)

482 Oh, and CAC, it was the comments by Honey Boo Boo that blew it out.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:18 PM (piMMO)

483 Just blow the bridges and let the cities starve. Should take about a month

NYC starts starving within a few days if the trucks stop rolling.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 03:17 PM (3QaxX)

That would be fun to watch. And yes, I mean every freakin word of it. .

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:18 PM (l86i3)

484 I guess Moo Moo just can't wrap his mind around recent history and domestic American history:



Students rioting in the late sixties

Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan

Terrorists with box cutters

The Civil War

American Revolution



All those situations involved numerically and materially inferior forces making quite a bit of a difference. The American military is decidedly NOT invulnerable or omnipotent and just a casual familiarity with history should put that argument to rest before it starts.

Posted by: Bashir's smirking french model GF badly in need of a face waxing at January 19, 2013 03:18 PM (ROv35)

485
Obama said in his weekly radio address that strong public support is required to pass gun legislation.

He's laying the groundwork to explain his coming failure to get anything passed.


This is your chance, Mr. Moo Moo, your president needs you.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (jTKU5)

486 And vic could prolly run it for you.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:12 PM (l86i3)

That would be great. Can you imagine all the cursing coming from the engineering spaces? I bet he'd keep it running, though.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (OQpzc)

487 "A look at the upcoming Senate races"

Well, let's see. In 2010, the GOP put out there a prospective Senate candidate who said that instead of health insurance reforms, patients should bring their doctor a chicken as barter payment. Another one warned of the danger of evil scientists having already created hybrid mutant mice with human brains, and ran television commercials saying "I'm not a witch".

In 2012, we had one GOP Senate candidate spouting insane nonsense about magic rape sperm detectors. And another one saying on camera that rape pregnancies are "God's will".

With such a brilliant track record as that in picking Senate candidates, what could POSSIBLY go wrong for the GOP in 2014?

The reality is that these nutballs not only are guaranteed to lose their own races, but they drag down the party in other races where there is media spillover. And frankly, the media spillover extends all over the goddamn country thanks to the media.

I don't blame the media. If I were them, with their unconcealed political allegiances, I'd do the same thing, gleefully. But maybe we should stop giving them fodder, eh?

Posted by: torquewrench at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (gqT4g)

488 One more point: let's take the argument to its logical conclusion. If we had a weapon which could extinguish all life on the planet, would we restrict its ownership, or let anyone with enough money have one? Discuss.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (6TB1Z)

489 The moo-troll and his wife are probably curled up in their footy 'jamas watching re-runs of the Kardashians.She'stelling him what to type.

***

http://bit.ly/pEP394

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (piMMO)

490 Voting was invented to keep the black man down.

Posted by: Danny Glover at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (SzAZ7)

491 That would be great. Can you imagine all the cursing coming from the engineering spaces? I bet he'd keep it running, though.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (OQpzc)

Well yeah, cussing like a sailor?

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (l86i3)

492 Left for two hours, and back and the thread is STILL going. Getting stale though.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at January 19, 2013 03:20 PM (hX3GP)

493 480 Purp Avenger,

You are 9 meals away from NOLA.

That is why I laugh heartily at anyone thinking the military is insurmountable, and why I argue for private ownership of the Barrett by the way.

2 trucks per 25 miles with missing engine pressure on all axises and suddenly you have a logistics crisis.

This land is built for insurgent war.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 03:20 PM (LRFds)

494 #202 did I say "Barack Obama?" I'm sorry, I meant "Precious Token."




Posted by: Buck Bradley at January 19, 2013 03:20 PM (PDRXW)

495
This land is built for insurgent war.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 03:20 PM (LRFds)


So many people just don't get that.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:21 PM (l86i3)

496
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 03:08 PM (LRFds)

Yes. People like Moo Moo think the Constitution isn't needed.

It's all about the politics of the moment.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 03:21 PM (jTKU5)

497 The American military is decidedly NOT invulnerable or omnipotent and just a casual familiarity with history should put that argument to rest before it starts.


****

Oh God but I dread to go there but, the military failed to even protect their own in Fort Hood.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:22 PM (piMMO)

498 The incredible magnitude of NYC's supply dependency becomes apparent when you drive through the place in the 3:00am-6:00am time frame.

There are literally thousands of trucks inbound to the city from all points EVERY SINGLE DAY during those hours.

NYC is one huge "single point of failure" scenario waiting to happen.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 03:23 PM (3QaxX)

499 Posted by: Buck Bradley at January 19, 2013 03:20 PM (PDRXW)

My newfavorite is...King Zero Dark Squirty.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 03:23 PM (fH4X9)

500 http://bit.ly/pEP394
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (piMMO)


-------------------------------------------------


Linko no worko.

Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 03:24 PM (Z/SJ5)

501 Who is this "Moo Moo" person and who elected him King? Plenty of people have "survived" living in slavery---apparently to Moo Moo that means they had nothing to complain about. Totalitarian toady......

Posted by: Buck Bradley at January 19, 2013 03:24 PM (PDRXW)

502 We approve of this thread

Posted by: Pontiac Widetrack at January 19, 2013 03:25 PM (jucos)

503 Off-topic but on the topic you guys are discussing:

Via Jawa Report: Just A Ordinary Day At JCPenny In Riverdale, Utah http://shar.es/C15zg

That picture should keep the annoying liberals from moving to Utah.

Posted by: Y-not at January 19, 2013 03:25 PM (5H6zj)

504 "I don't agree with Mr. Moo Moo's position against AR-15s, but so far, the relevant arguments against ownership of WMD are the definition of "arms" (Diogenes Lamp) and the need for the government to have decisive force at its disposal (ChemJeff, who unfortunately seems to have left). There are problems with both, IMO, but they may be surmountable."



The argument is that WMDs cannot be used in "defense" of personal liberty. The WMD argument is stupid, used by stupid people to troll the argument away from what it should be about, and should always be dismissed out of hand.

Posted by: Burn the Witch (getting rid of painfully stupid sock) at January 19, 2013 03:25 PM (ROv35)

505 Who is this "Moo Moo" person and who elected him King? Plenty of people have "survived" living in slavery---apparently to Moo Moo that means they had nothing to complain about. Totalitarian toady......


****

His whole argument started off with how AR-15s are a political liability: Not the hill to die on.

He simply refused to listen to any amount of reason.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:26 PM (piMMO)

506 military is decidedly NOT invulnerable or omnipotent and just a casual familiarity with history should put that argument to rest before it starts.
Posted by: Bashir's smirking french model GF badly in need of a face waxing at January 19, 2013 03:18 PM (ROv35)

The Left knows if it gets the citizens disarmed then thugs with full autos will be enough to oppress the masses. When that happens they can win with just arming the union thugs. Works everywhere else in the world.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:26 PM (OQpzc)

507 As far as the 'fight the military thing', the reason that works is that soldiers usually rebel quickly against killing citizens. Especially when a lot of the soldiers agree in principle with the protestors.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 03:26 PM (jTKU5)

508
That would be great. Can you imagine all the cursing coming from the engineering spaces? I bet he'd keep it running, though.

Yup. There'd needs be a rocking chair and a Ship's Kitteh.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at January 19, 2013 03:27 PM (yiIja)

509 Easiest Pick-Ups from top to Bottom:

1) Alaska--Begich has just been keeping that seat warm.
2) South Dakota - Mike Rounds will squash Johnson, who hasn't even announced whether he is running or not.
3) West Virginia-- Capito will be fine in the primaries and squash in the General. Not worried.
4) Louisiana - just need a semi-credible candidate for Landrieu who is on life support.
5) North Carolina -- ditto for Hagan.
6) Arkansas -- this should be an easy pick-up but Pryor is an anomaly. No one even bothered to challenge him in '08 and he got 80%.
7) Massachusetts (special) -- all depends on Brown. This moves up the list if he runs, which I think is 50-50 right now.
Montana -- I disagree with CAC on this. Baucus is safe, and Montana is slowly turning purple, unfortunately.
9) Minnesota -- Franken is safe, unfortunately. T-Paw already said he's not running. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/268571-republicans-look-to-oust-franken

Every other Dem state is a pipe dream. No excuse not to pick up 6 here though.

Posted by: Waingro at January 19, 2013 03:28 PM (+k7pf)

510 the military failed to even protect their own in Fort Hood.

As a practical matter, military bases are some of the most disarmed places in the country.

I was tasked with "guarding" the Heli flight line one night at Ft Dix back in the 70's. I wasn't given any ammo for my M-16. I would have had to use it as a club if anything happened.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 03:28 PM (3QaxX)

511 Moo Moo is enjoying his fair-trade latte as he gets his starfish waxed.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 03:28 PM (tBnjP)

512 488 One more point: let's take the argument to its logical conclusion. If we had a weapon which could extinguish all life on the planet, would we restrict its ownership, or let anyone with enough money have one? Discuss.


Detonating one of those should result in serious jail time.

And how is that the logical conclusion? An assault rifle is vastly, vastly less powerful than such a weapon.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 19, 2013 03:28 PM (uhAkr)

513 What good is winning when they come to DC and act like democrats?

Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 19, 2013 03:29 PM (jucos)

514 I would like to point out that the carrying of a concealed weapon is not permitted on a military installation. All weapons must be registered through the base if you live on base in housing. If you live in the dorms, you are supposed to store them in the armory. It's a giant gun free zone unless you are a cop or at the firing range. Just FYI, NDH.

Posted by: no good deed at January 19, 2013 03:29 PM (mjR67)

515 Constitutional rights are not negotiable, nor is their violation to be excused on the grounds that any individual violation did not kill any particular person. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the citizens against government tyranny--i.e. it authorizes the keeping by citizen of ANY weapon their government may use against them. You may not like it Moo Moo, but that is irrelevant.



Posted by: Buck Bradley at January 19, 2013 03:30 PM (PDRXW)

516 I was tasked with "guarding" the Heli flight line one night at Ft Dix back in the 70's. I wasn't given any ammo for my M-16. I would have had to use it as a club if anything happened.

****

Seriously?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:30 PM (piMMO)

517 Between Pa, WI, and Mich there were over 2 million hunters roaming the woods this hunting season.

Wisconsin alone had 8th largest standing Army in the world, more than Germany and France combined - no fatalities.

In Nov and Dec of '12 more than 5 million guns purchased in the US.
I million + more than it would take to arm The Chinese AND Indian standing armies.

67 million guns bought in the US since '09.

These numbers dwarf the capability of any portion of the US Army wholly loyal to SCOAMF.

Posted by: moronic at January 19, 2013 03:30 PM (aZ6ew)

518 511 Moo Moo is enjoying his fair-trade latte as he gets his starfish waxed.

+100
Extra points...for using 'starfish'.
Heh.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 03:31 PM (fH4X9)

519 Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 03:16 PM (6TB1Z)


The interesting thing is that there are several topics such as this (abortion, gun control, and entitlements) that the Republican candidates will probably screw up during their campaigns. And that is before the MFM distorts their answers/responses/positions and paints "red" targets on their backs. Everyone of these topics is a guaranteed winner for the Dems unless the Repubs have a coordinated response that represents an honest Constitutionally based positon that can be understood by the few FSA types that have IQ's above room temperature and represent solid positions that also satisfy the conservative base (probably not perfectly).


The Repubs also need to craft valid understandable focused attacks on the principles, corruption, and competence of every Dem candidate for any public office and be prepared to unfailingly trot them out when answering any question put to them in public.



I ain't holdin' my breath, bro'.

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children of course) at January 19, 2013 03:31 PM (Cnqmv)

520 ......off moronic smelly sock

Posted by: ontherocks at January 19, 2013 03:31 PM (aZ6ew)

521
Hee hee.

This is big. Lady Gaga will perform at Obama's Immaculation.

I hope she wears the gun bra.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 03:31 PM (jTKU5)

522 281- THIS. Great comment.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at January 19, 2013 03:31 PM (C8mVl)

523 I don't blame the media. If I were them, with their
unconcealed political allegiances, I'd do the same thing, gleefully. But
maybe we should stop giving them fodder, eh?



Posted by: torquewrench at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (gqT4g)

Yeah, Yeah, we've covered that. Both of those guys should have known better to say such stupid things, but they didn't. I *DO* blame the media. If it weren't for Decade after Decade of Liberal propaganda pushed onto the populace and disguised as news and entertainment, the public would probably have just ignored stupid stuff like that.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 03:31 PM (bb5+k)

524 These numbers dwarf the capability of any portion of the US Army wholly loyal to SCOAMF.
Posted by: moronic at January 19, 2013 03:30 PM (aZ6ew)

As long as we don't bunch ourselves up too much, we should do okay.

Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 03:32 PM (tBnjP)

525 "And how is that the logical conclusion?"



I was trying to find any amount of logic in that conclusion. Extinguishing all life on the planet is inherently tyrannical and therefore immoral.

Posted by: Burn the Witch (getting rid of painfully stupid sock) at January 19, 2013 03:32 PM (ROv35)

526 Re: B52,
I'd think the well regulated bit applies here.
You have to buy the B52, the airbase, the nukes, the bunkers for the nukes, the PALs for the nukes, the Air Force security troops, etc., etc. And when National Command Authority decides it's time to nuke someone away you go.

If I'm already doomed somehow sign me up to ride one out ala Slim Pickens. Probably need duck tape even using the fap hand though.

Posted by: DaveA at January 19, 2013 03:32 PM (wE+gM)

527 Hee hee.

This is big. Lady Gaga will perform at Obama's Immaculation.

I hope she wears the gun bra.

***

She has gun stilletos as well

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:33 PM (piMMO)

528 One more point: let's take the argument to its
logical conclusion. If we had a weapon which could extinguish all life
on the planet, would we restrict its ownership, or let anyone with
enough money have one? Discuss.


Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (6TB1Z)

Anyone with enough money could not be prevented from getting and using that. Take IRAN for example. Any Sane United States would have blown the dog-shit out of them back in 1979, let alone tolerate their development of a Nuclear weapon and Ballistic missiles.

They are building them anyway.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 03:34 PM (bb5+k)

529 OT- Did everyone see the Obama voter beat a Phila woman and throw her on subway tracks?
http://tinyurl.com/a33v4lb

Not feeling real PC right now.

Daily acts of inhumanity no longer move Americans. "Sucks to be you" seems to suffice.

Posted by: CJ at January 19, 2013 03:34 PM (9G+G5)

530 I was tasked with "guarding" the Heli flight line one night at Ft Dix back in the 70's. I wasn't given any ammo for my M-16. I would have had to use it as a club if anything happened.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 03:28 PM (3QaxX)


-------------------------------------------------------


My very first guard post when I was new in the military was a bunker farm. They gave me a fully loaded M14 plus four magazines.

Figured they didn't want ANYONE coming over the fence.

Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 03:34 PM (Z/SJ5)

531 Unbelievably, there is no new thread up!

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children of course) at January 19, 2013 03:34 PM (Cnqmv)

532 OT- Did everyone see the Obama voter beat a Phila woman and throw her on subway tracks?

***

Yes. Saw it, and screw "assault" charges.

He should be charged with attempted murder.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:35 PM (piMMO)

533
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:33 PM (piMMO)


Maybe she'll enter in that giant egg and they can abort her.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 03:35 PM (jTKU5)

534 "I was tasked with "guarding" the Heli flight line one night at Ft Dix back in the 70's. I wasn't given any ammo for my M-16. I would have had to use it as a club if anything happened."



During Desert Shield/Storm, I was tasked with guarding various armories (including the ammo dump) on a stateside base. My M-16 would have made a very poor club.

Posted by: Burn the Witch (getting rid of painfully stupid sock) at January 19, 2013 03:35 PM (ROv35)

535 This land is built for insurgent war.


Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 03:20 PM (LRFds)

You're actually right about that. It's so spread out that trucking is a real necessity to supply food and other materials to the cities. Easy enough to disrupt, because you can't guard all of the roads all of the time.

Hadn't much thought about it till you just mentioned it.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 03:37 PM (bb5+k)

536 A happy sailor is a bitching sailor.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:37 PM (OQpzc)

537 Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:35 PM (piMMO)

I can't tell the race of the victim. The guy seemed motivated by something.

Posted by: CJ at January 19, 2013 03:38 PM (9G+G5)

538
Unbelievably, there is no new thread up!

I really enjoyed yesterday's Best Whole Album thread. Got exposed to some new music and discovered that a few of my more obscure releases were moderately popular.

Another good thread might be Best Concerts. If we can remember them, that is. And we don't count the ones that resulted in arrests or waking up in the drunk tank.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at January 19, 2013 03:39 PM (yiIja)

539 Hell, that's why the Civil War lasted so long. Logistics. It's also one of the main reasons the North won. the South was pretty good tactically, but as the old saying goes Amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics.

Posted by: Burn the Witch (getting rid of painfully stupid sock) at January 19, 2013 03:39 PM (ROv35)

540 You're actually right about that. It's so spread out that trucking is a real necessity to supply food and other materials to the cities. Easy enough to disrupt, because you can't guard all of the roads all of the time. Hadn't much thought about it till you just mentioned it.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 03:37 PM (bb5+k)

Even easier. All the bridges on all the roads simultaneously.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:40 PM (OQpzc)

541 "I was tasked with "guarding" the Heli flight line one night at Ft Dix back in the 70's."

I wonder if you were there when Obama mentor Bill Ayers tried to set that nail bomb off at the base dance...

Posted by: CJ at January 19, 2013 03:40 PM (9G+G5)

542 The last pic I saw of Lady Gag-me...she had packed on a lot of weight.

Maybe they picked her as a part of Mooch's anti-obesity policy, as an example of "the tragedy of obesity".

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 03:40 PM (fH4X9)

543 The boundary of my second amendment protected rights is somewhere between me shooting a man attacking me in my home and me shooting every living person in the city. I think it is pretty clear that by definition WMD is on the other side of the boundary.

The "What about WMD?" is a stupid argument made by stupid people when you start thrashing the shit out of them with logic and law.

Posted by: Mr. Feverhead at January 19, 2013 03:44 PM (SzAZ7)

544 Hey...guys...

I'm sure all of you mean...'hypothetically'...when you mention stuff about blowing bridges.
Right?

*nervously looks from side to side*

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 03:44 PM (fH4X9)

545 You're actually right about that. It's so spread out that trucking is a real necessity to supply food and other materials to the cities. Easy enough to disrupt, because you can't guard all of the roads all of the time. Hadn't much thought about it till you just mentioned it.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 03:37 PM (bb5+k)


-------------------------------------------------------


Being of the mind, perhaps from my Cav days, I've thought about it many times.

Not only lines of disruption but avenues of escape. And don't think this government hasn't thought of those possiblities also.

Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 03:45 PM (Z/SJ5)

546 If we were going to slaughter people for creating doomsday weapons, why didn't we destroy the Soviets? Weaponized anthraxwould have qualified. The only thing I fear is some Iranian doomsday cultist with a gene splicer.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:46 PM (OQpzc)

547 If tsa can hassle a woman for an embossed design of a six shooter in a leather purse flap, the SS damn well better arrest Lady Gaga.

Posted by: waldo at January 19, 2013 03:46 PM (H96hE)

548 The argument is that WMDs cannot be used in "defense" of personal
liberty. The WMD argument is stupid, used by stupid people to troll
the argument away from what it should be about, and should always be
dismissed out of hand.


Just calling something stupid is stupid. This was a reasonable thread, with real discussion about an important issue for a change. Sorry you couldn't join it.

Anyone with enough money could not be prevented from getting and using that. Take IRAN for example.

But we're talking about US law and the Consitution here. That has nothing to do with Iran, or what a rich person could do. They could do what you say. I cite every James Bond movie as evidence. That doesn't mean it's okay under our system of law.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 03:47 PM (6TB1Z)

549 *nervously looks from side to side*
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 03:44 PM (fH4X9)

Of course. My greatest fear is the benevolent government would fail to guard all the bridges. I have faith though. They'd value those at a level equal to a US ambassador.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:48 PM (OQpzc)

550 Just bought a Dremel 3000 and I'll be, if that isn't more exciting than the next senate race.

What are we going to do with the senate? Continue to insulate the plebs from their own disastrous, short term self interest? Ha. LiB.

See sven for details.

Posted by: Not Ready to Unsock at January 19, 2013 03:49 PM (1FLBb)

551 []Re: B52,
I'd think the well regulated bit applies here.
You have
to buy the B52, the airbase, the nukes, the bunkers for the nukes, the
PALs for the nukes, the Air Force security troops, etc., etc. And when
National Command Authority decides it's time to nuke someone away you
go.

If I'm already doomed somehow sign me up to ride one out ala
Slim Pickens. Probably need duck tape even using the fap hand though.

But that's an argument about logistics, not legality. If you go the "well-regulated" route, then every Dem politician will say that's what he's doing.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 03:49 PM (6TB1Z)

552 Everyone of these topics is a guaranteed winner for the Dems unless
the Repubs have a coordinated response that represents an honest
Constitutionally based positon that can be understood by the few FSA
types that have IQ's above room temperature and represent solid
positions that also satisfy the conservative base (probably not
perfectly).


My point exactly. Thanks.

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 03:50 PM (6TB1Z)

553 546...The only thing I fear is some Iranian doomsday cultist with a gene splicer.

Gene splicer?
I've been worried about those vials of 'Ebola-Pox' missing from a Russian lab, ever since I heard about them.

Yeah, some dickhead scientist thought it would be cool to cross Ebola with Smallpox.
Like this is something that the world was in need of.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 03:52 PM (fH4X9)

554 534 "I was tasked with "guarding" the Heli flight line one night at Ft Dix back in the 70's. I wasn't given any ammo for my M-16. I would have had to use it as a club if anything happened."



During Desert Shield/Storm, I was tasked with guarding various armories (including the ammo dump) on a stateside base. My M-16 would have made a very poor club.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I pulled guard duty on many installations throughout the 80's. The only place I was allowed to carry live rounds was in (west) Germany at a nuclear munition storage site. Even then they made us put duct tape over the magazine to stop us from chambering rounds.

Posted by: Mr. Feverhead at January 19, 2013 03:53 PM (SzAZ7)

555 The "What about WMD?" is a stupid argument made by stupid people
when you start thrashing the shit out of them with logic and law.


You're absolutely right. There's no room for interpretation or legal mischief with airtight criteria like "The boundary of my second amendment protected rights is somewhere
between me shooting a man attacking me in my home and me shooting every
living person in the city. "

Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 03:53 PM (6TB1Z)

556 "Just calling something stupid is stupid. This was a reasonable thread, with real discussion about an important issue for a change. Sorry you couldn't join it."



Actually I gave the reason for it being stupid. If you'd like, next time I'll break it down a little easier with a "that's why the argument is stupid", or "The argument is stupid, here's why..."



I didn't call anyone stupid, I called a stupid argument "stupid". If that offends your delicate sensibilities, that's not my problem.

Posted by: Burn the Witch (getting rid of painfully stupid sock) at January 19, 2013 03:54 PM (ROv35)

557 an honest Constitutionally based positon that can be understood by the few FSA types that have IQ's above room temperature and represent solid positions that also satisfy the conservative base

Not sure what this discussion was about, but THIS simple approach is how Republicans will win. We lose when we succeed in in appealing to one of the two of those groups, but not both.

Posted by: CJ at January 19, 2013 03:55 PM (9G+G5)

558 546
If we were going to slaughter people for creating doomsday weapons, why
didn't we destroy the Soviets? Weaponized anthraxwould have qualified.
The only thing I fear is some Iranian doomsday cultist with a gene
splicer.

Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:46 PM (OQpzc)


Curtis LeMay wanted to do exactly that. As a matter of fact, he overflew the Entire Soviet Union and radar mapped every potential bomb target for future reference. The Soviet Scientists who were working on the Russian Atomic bomb were convinced that someday they would see American Bombers coming over the hill to wipe them out, but it never happened.

Why didn't we do it? Because we were fucking stupid! That's why!! The details of what the American Air Force was doing, and what Curtis LeMay had been planning for years, are available in a book called "Dark Sun, The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb." I think Curtis Le May came very close to, if he did not in fact succeed in, committing treason. Some of the stuff he did is an obvious defiance of the Chain of Command, and he was undertaking for himself prerogatives which properly lay with the Executive.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 03:55 PM (bb5+k)

559 We talk about the government going apeshit on our rights, I'm also worried about the many jihadi sleeper cells waiting for the first sign of public uprising. Haven't noticed too many of those cells being busted lately.

Perhaps OWS, but, hey, the stupid............

Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 03:57 PM (Z/SJ5)

560 539 burn the witch,

I'm going to the shop.

I'll be on later.

Moo Moo nothing to personal. It is a hot topic it is liberty after all and your arguments are not convincing to at least 25-40% of America.

That is the amount in theory that can spoil an Amendment but you will keep nibbling at the apple.

The American military will need to grow to 5 times the current size minimum to be able to maintain the current logistics net.

That issue was the basis for Sherman's lament on the smallness of the US forces that had him eventually furloughed for breakdown.

If you force me into a corner fighting tyranny I will break your power grid, stop your food supply, and use propaganda to try to steal your munitions.

Your liberals' use of the "mighty US military' that they hate as the billy club to argue for disarming is a rather freudian admission all its own.

and as Forrest Gump says, "Al Gore is even fucking dumber than me."

Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 03:58 PM (LRFds)

561 You're absolutely right. There's no room for interpretation or legal mischief with airtight criteria like "The boundary of my second amendment protected rights is somewhere
between me shooting a man attacking me in my home and me shooting every
living person in the city. "


Well if you agree that the boundary is between there some place that's a start.

If you read the rest of my comment you'd see my argument that by Definition WMD is on the other side of that boundary. It is sort of why we call them WMDs. Don't endeavor to be so dense.

Posted by: Mr. Feverhead at January 19, 2013 04:07 PM (SzAZ7)

562 ut that's an argument about logistics, not legality. If you go the
"well-regulated" route, then every Dem politician will say that's what
he's doing.


That's well regulated for a B52. For an AR it's does he have pants on at the POS and isn't mumbling imakillallofemsunzabitches

Posted by: DaveA at January 19, 2013 04:16 PM (wE+gM)

563 Inertia, prior prosperity, and its unique place atop the world's fiat
monetary systemwill keep the US from "burning"indefinitely (sorry,
LIB'ers).


HAS kept.

We've no idea where this beyond the looking glass will go. The Cold War nuke standoff went 40+? years and wobble several times with 2+bit players. Practically every damn financial instrument on the planet is now bubbled up nonsense. Anything even looks like an exit and pop goes the weasel.

Posted by: DaveA at January 19, 2013 04:20 PM (wE+gM)

564 Just a depressing though.

In 2016, a presidential election year, the GOP will have 24 seats up, and the Dems will have only 10. Most the GOP's seats will be up. The GOP will likely loose many of those seats, and only reasonably have a chance of picking up maybe one.

If the Dems keep their 20-13 lead (give or take a few) in '14, then they could pick up enough seats to grab not just 60+, but 67+ and thus amend the constitution with whatever fluffy sounding tyranny the want.

This will not end well...

Posted by: The Political Hat at January 19, 2013 04:30 PM (Vk2pI)

565 554 534 "I was tasked with "guarding" the Heli flight line one night at Ft Dix back in the 70's. I wasn't given any ammo for my M-16. I would have had to use it as a club if anything happened."



During Desert Shield/Storm, I was tasked with guarding various armories (including the ammo dump) on a stateside base. My M-16 would have made a very poor club.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I pulled guard duty on many installations throughout the 80's. The only place I was allowed to carry live rounds was in (west) Germany at a nuclear munition storage site. Even then they made us put duct tape over the magazine to stop us from chambering rounds.
Posted by: Mr. Feverhead at January 19, 2013 03:53 PM (SzAZ7)






Every time I pulled guard duty at the post ammo supply dump in the 80s, I had a magazine with 5 rounds. Red duct taped like in Die Hard 2. Our most dangerous weapon was actually the phone.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 19, 2013 04:33 PM (CjTV9)

566 OOH SENATE RACES?

LETS TALK ABOUT RAPE BABY!

LETS TALK ABOUT MAGIC VAGINA POWERS!

LETS TALK ABOUT ALL THE LEGI-TI-MATE WAYS THAT WOMAN CAN SHUT IT DOWN.

LETS TALK ABOUT RAPE SOME MORE!

AND MENTION GOD AT THE SAME TIME!

GO GO GO!


Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 19, 2013 04:35 PM (+OTLF)

567 Mr. Moo Moo:

What you, your wife, and her girlfriends don't seem to understand is that you're fixated on the wrong weapon. Government is the most dangerous weapon on the planet, having killed hundreds of millions over the last century alone. Weapons in the hands of private individuals--up to and including weapons of mass destruction--are the only deterrent against that kind of slaughter.

Sandy Hook killed 26. That was a terrible thing.

In the most advanced country, with the "highest" culture of the time, admired the world over as exemplary, Hitler's regime was able to kill roughly 16 million people. That you and your gaggle of silly geese can't manage to recognize the really dangerous mechanism among us may be frustrating to people like me, but it really isn't terribly concerning in the grand scheme of things. Like irongrampa said, what's mine will remain mine.

You and your wife can wave your little white flags all you want, but I'm not playing by your rules.

Posted by: Ummberto Echo at January 19, 2013 04:39 PM (3X3ZR)

568 Has any politician ever tried this response to the rape issue to see if it would float?

"I am going to push for legislation that would mandate castrations and excision of erectile tissue prior to release from incarceration for all convicted rapists. If they don't want to lose their junk then they can stay in prison where there junk will do no harm.
Why castration and erectile tissue removal? If they can't get it up and they can't nut, they can't make rape babies. Any fucking questions?"

Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 19, 2013 04:40 PM (+OTLF)

569 South Dakota should be moved into the "gimme" column. Johnson is finished. he can no longer speak coherently. Nice guy but his staff is acting in his position and has been for over 2 years. Governor Rounds, very popular, is running for his seat. Rounds is, like the name, without an edge but a gun rights, free American midwesterner. The job is his.

Posted by: OldSarg at January 19, 2013 04:49 PM (AH2tK)

570 There is no hope until more states pass voter id laws. Hopefully between now and Nov. '14, a lot more states get with the program. Otherwise, the GOP will not win anything.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at January 19, 2013 05:04 PM (KL49F)

571 570
There is no hope until more states pass voter id laws. Hopefully between
now and Nov. '14, a lot more states get with the program. Otherwise,
the GOP will not win anything.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at January 19, 2013 05:04 PM (KL49F)

They outnumber us.We need more than voter ID laws now. We need to reeducate the youth before they reach voting age. Take the schools back.

Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 19, 2013 05:07 PM (+OTLF)

572 also need to take back control of the media. Buy up newspapers and tv stations and put a stop to the blatant liberal bias and misinformation flooding the airwaves.

Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 19, 2013 05:08 PM (+OTLF)

573 Let's make something clear. Hagan, NC, is fucking walking dead.


Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 19, 2013 05:23 PM (wR+pz)

574 Delaware did not go to Romney by double digits. In fact, it was won by Obama. So why highlighted?

Posted by: Scoob at January 19, 2013 06:02 PM (bCONy)

575 Hey wheatie! WTF have you been smoking?

"The Dem-party used to be the more conservative of the two parties."

Did you really type that or am I drunk-blog-reading again? SRSLY.

On what bizarro planet has the party that spawned the KKK, woodrow wilson, hoover and fdr (who is in fact in HELL), jfk, lbj, jimmuh the peanut, billy jeff, and obysmal EVER FUCKING BEEN ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE SUN WITH THE WORD
CONSERVATIVE???????

FYI I am from the party of Coolidge and Reagan, in that order.

Posted by: Blacksmith8 at January 19, 2013 06:55 PM (Yzu6e)

576 I can see it now ... return of the Akin-Mourdock-Angle axis.

I refuse to consider contributing to a party that would ever allow a candidate with as offensive views as these nitwits to ever grace a ticket.

Until we learn not to strong-arm this socon crap upon the masses, I am taking a pass at supporting GOP and fiscon tickets.

I am sooo tired of defending the indefensible. So tired of looking with great angst towards the next opportunity to blow our chances ... er ... the next press release or interview. Sooo tired of having to justify why I could intellectually or morally support something so anti-intellectual and blatantly idiotic, or something so amoral and profoundly mindblowing inane ...

No more socons on tickets. Ever.

Posted by: Joe in MI at January 19, 2013 08:14 PM (3R8wQ)

577
"The seat vacated by Jay Rockefeller in West Virginia is now Capito's to lose"
Ha ha. He. haaha. Bwaaaahahahhhahahahahahahhhhaaaaahhhhahahahahahaha.
Ha. Snort.
WV is Democrat territory. Upper East Side/Philly South side level Democrat. To even think otherwise is just plain ign'ant. Or wishful.

Posted by: Jess1 at January 19, 2013 08:48 PM (lbiWb)

578 #577, seriously, bro?

Posted by: Waingro at January 19, 2013 10:06 PM (+k7pf)

579 CAC neglects that RIGHT NOW the Rubes are making a HUGE investment in Teh Stoopid. They gonna be counting themselves lucky if they only end up down one.

We don't even have to wait out the 23 months to realize where CAC's gone skewy: Brown may not even run in Massachusetts, but if he does, way things are going now, he'll get his ass handed him. So I'm assuming Brown isn't living in a cave and realizes this: thus, he ain't gonna run, cuz if he does, that could damage his future too much.

Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at January 19, 2013 10:13 PM (21TJo)

580 13 "Remember, Frankenstein rode rode Obama's coat tails to a 350 vote win. You think he'll have that benefit in 2014? No way. Obama will be radioactive by then."

Exactly Ace said he'd be in 2012.

Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at January 19, 2013 10:18 PM (21TJo)

581 #579, he won't get his "ass handed to him" in a Special against freaking Ed Markey. Trust me. He'll win fairly comfortably. But I agree he may not run and go for the Governor's mansion instead.

Posted by: Waingro at January 19, 2013 10:20 PM (+k7pf)

582 Old Republican Strategy : Slap your base and vote against what they want.Bow before your opponents. Pick an nonoffensive milquetoast nobody seems to actually want and blame the base when he nosedives. Call everybody stupid but the shit heads who were in charged and made all the decisions.

New Republican Strategy : Slap your base more and harder, and vote against what they want more often. Bow before your opponents lower than you ever have before. Pick the next nonoffensive milquetoast in line nobody seems to actually want and blame the people who used to be your base (but left) when he nosedives. Call everybody stupid but the shit heads who were in charged and made all the decisions.

Posted by: Cackfinger at January 20, 2013 03:58 AM (CCHli)

583 This is why you fail:

American Crossroads $400,000,000

2/8 senators elected. Two of them were publically "abandoned" a month before the election.

There's your stupid.

Posted by: Cackfinger at January 20, 2013 04:03 AM (CCHli)

584 "Just blow the bridges and let the cities starve. Should take about a month "

They can make rafts. Nice try though. Oh wait, now you'll tell me they can mine the rivers...

Posted by: Cackfinger at January 20, 2013 04:11 AM (CCHli)

585 "My question is who exactly are you going to get for your new party?
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:47 PM (6TB1Z)"

You should instead worry about who's going to bother with your old party as it repeatedly rolls over for belly scratches only to get kicked and never learns.

You guys failed twice now with all your smug bullshit and smart thinkin'. You are your own problem now, not mine.

Posted by: Cackfinger at January 20, 2013 04:14 AM (CCHli)

586 Our biggest problem is getting the 100 per%ers out to vote. If they finally discover that any Republican is better that the best dem we should win. But as you say its tough to bet on stupid.

Posted by: rodguy911 at January 20, 2013 10:10 AM (V92DT)

587 It's probably a little late for comment but I just wanted to point out that the Tea Party was an infant in 2010 and a 2 year old in 2012. The fact we didn't find non-establishment candidates or ones who could run good campaigns for a movement so young is NOT a sign of future failure to do so more effectively. Second you have Franken listed as likely in MN. He isn't loved and he wasn't when he won a 3-way race with 42% of the vote in 2006. 58% will not be loyal Franken supporters from the last time like Obama. Next if Tim Pawlenty (2-term Governor) steps in the race tilts Republican. He has a statewide support system that won him twice in a blue state.

Posted by: Conan at January 20, 2013 10:58 AM (KXf0F)

588 "566 OOH SENATE RACES?

LETS TALK ABOUT RAPE BABY!

LETS TALK ABOUT MAGIC VAGINA POWERS!

LETS TALK ABOUT ALL THE LEGI-TI-MATE WAYS THAT WOMAN CAN SHUT IT DOWN.

LETS TALK ABOUT RAPE SOME MORE!

AND MENTION GOD AT THE SAME TIME!

GO GO GO!


Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 19, 2013 04:35 PM (+OTLF)"

And best of all the GOP will criticize them more harshly than the democrats did lending credibility to the democrat's accusations. Then the GOP will say that they are abandoning those candidates and THEN they'll complain about losing the seat THEY helped sink.

Stupid stupid stupid party. One stupid doesn't BEGIN to cover how stupid the GOP is. I think it wants to fail.

Posted by: Cackfinger at January 20, 2013 05:51 PM (CCHli)






Processing 0.1, elapsed 0.1131 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0273 seconds, 597 records returned.
Page size 344 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat