Thursday, August 27, 2015

Too Dreadful for Words

Alison Parker at the moment of her death
 
We got guns
They got guns
All God's children got guns....
 
The Marx Brothers
from the 1932 film, "Duck Soup"
 
When was the last time someone was murdered in this country on live television? You have to go all the way back to November 24, 1963, when Lee Harvey Oswald was gunned down by Jack Ruby in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters. To the best of my knowledge, it hasn't happened since. Given this nation's perverted obsession with violence, that's surprising. It'll happen again, though, and before long. Of that I have no doubt. Pretty sad, huh? Pretty sad indeed.
 
As traumatic as Oswald's killing was for the country over half a century ago, he was not a very sympathetic figure to be sure. What happened yesterday morning in Roanoke, Virginia was different. 
 
The naiveté of some of the more empty-headed talking heads was something to behold; in fact, it stunned the senses. Their rhetorical question went as follows:
 
Would this latest national trauma, viewed by tens-of-millions of Americans, finally compel the politicians in Washington to do what should have been done decades ago by bringing into being sensible gun-control legislation?
 
I answered that question with lightening speed:
 
They smile no more
Nearly three years ago, twenty innocent little girls and boys were slaughtered  - like rabid swine - inside their classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Also murdered on that day were six women whose job it was to educate and protect them. If that blood-curdling tragedy was not enough to influence Congress to do what is morally right, do these silly people seriously believe that the bodies of two dead television journalists will be enough to get them to see the light? Are they kidding me?
 
Usually tragedies of this magnitude fail to shock me. When the first reports of the Sandy Hook massacre came through the airwaves on the morning of December 14, 2012, so help me I barely batted an eye:
 
"Oh, it's happened again, huh?" I said out loud, "And so close to Christmastime. Ho, ho, fucking ho."
 
As I said at the time, I long-ago adjusted to living in a nation where this type of unspeakable atrocity is as common as a morning moon in the western sky. You should adjust to it, too. It makes coping a helluva lot easier, believe me. Vodka helps, too - LOTS OF IT.
 
I have to tell you, though, that while this latest trauma in the American train-wreck didn't surprise me all that much, the images of the murders of  reporter Alison Parker, and cameraman Adam Ward were a horrifying thing to be an eyewitness to - and make no mistake about it, we are all eyewitnesses. Most of the news outlets - to their eternal credit - refused to broadcast the carnage. It did, however, make its way onto YouTube and Twitter. I saw the images. Watching the horror on Alison's beautiful face, hearing her screams of "Oh my God!", was too disturbing and depressing to try to put into words; I'm not even going to try. I'm sorry, I'm just not that articulate.
 
Alison Parker and Adam Ward
I won't mention the name of the demented asshole who murdered Alison and Adam. The cold-blooded bastard was obviously seeking attention on a national scale. Well, he's not going to get it here. Like the psychopathic little nerd who killed twenty-six innocent human beings in Newtown in December of 2012, he shot himself before he could be bought to justice. That's probably just as well. We want to hear his names - he had two of them - no more. Let us, instead, remember and honor the names of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. We owe them that much at least.
 
The person who committed this latest atrocity was able to purchase the weapon he used to kill these two innocents with relative ease. If nothing else, that nasty little fact should give the rest of us something to ponder.

Earlier today, a very nice woman who works as a physical therapist in the health care facility where my mother lives, expressed to me her opinion that, as a licensed, law-abiding gun owner, she would think it unfair were she suddenly denied the right to protect herself. I had to agree with her. But she went through the trouble of going through the process of licensing and  registration - not to mention instruction on how to use the firearm now in her possession. She also lives in New York State. The laws here are pretty sensible as far as guns are concerned. 

The problem is simply that, whenever someone is murdered with an illegal weapon in this part of he country, the gun-in-question is almost always traced to the south, where it was originally purchased and transported up I-95 (or "The Iron Highway" as it is euphemistically referred to by law enforcement) to be sold on the streets of our big (and not-so-big) cities. In the shit-for-brains regions of the United States, obtaining a gun is about as easy as obtaining a garden hose.

This is the reality of life in America. This is the way it's going to be for now on: Mountains of bodies, rivers of blood, too many broken hearts to assess. Have you yet had someone you knew and loved murdered by some homicidal jackass with a gun? If the answer to that question is "no", I'll make a prediction now that you'll no doubt find quite disturbing: You will. In the not-too-distant future the law of averages will guarantee it. Our gun culture is compounding by the year - and it won't be going away anytime soon. Now, doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

And. please, don't give me the NRA's argument (and if they haven't used it yet, they will - count on it) that if only Alison and Adam had the sense to arm themselves, they would be alive today.

Alison Parker and Adam Ward were focusing on their jobs. They were ambushed. They were doomed. They never had a chance.
 
Don't hold your breath waiting for change to come. That's not going to happen - not now, not ever. Every Republican in Washington (and way too many Democrats to count) are in the pocket of the National Rifle Association. I imagine the only thing that would reverse this intolerable situation would be an epidemic     of random shootings of our elected representatives (with a handful of NRA spokesmen thrown in just for shits and giggles). That would change things overnight - you'd better believe it, Bubba! But it would be wrong for me to hope for such a deplorable trend in our national affairs - and I'm not even gonna go there. I'm just trying to make what I feel to be a very valid point. And besides, violence isn't my thing. It isn't your thing either, I'm sure....I hope.
 
I am going to end this piece by repeating (for the one-hundredth time it seems) a paragraph I wrote on the morning after Newtown. Forgive me for sounding like a broken record, but it needs to be said yet again....and again and again and again....
 
The NRA types love to jabber away - like diseased little myna birds - about "freedom". We need to come to grips with some unpleasant realities. A society that lives in dreaded, mortal terror, wondering when and where the next massacre of innocents will take place, may indeed be many things - no argument there; "Free"  they are not. Let's just stop kidding ourselves here and now, okay?

And while you're at it, get used to living in a nation in ruins.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net
 
John
 SUGGESTED LISTENING:

Imagine
by John Lennon

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed and hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world....


A really pretty anthem pleading for love and understanding by one of the more celebrated victims of gun violence in America.  He's gone and he's not coming back.

Please, we need to take a long, hard look at what gun violence does to the people we love:
 
John Lennon, New York City morgue, December 1980
 
*********************************************
 
AFTERTHOUGHT, 8/28/15, 8:50 AM:
 
The headline in this morning's New York Daily News says it all:
 
Since Newtown, 84,523 people have been killed by guns in the U.S.
We cry. We get angry. We demand action.
Then we forget....Until the next time.
 
Pretty sad indeed....
 
WAS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY  OR WHAT!

106 Comments:

At 3:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A news crew, doing a completely ordinary happy-face morning feature at a mall get blown away on camera. If this had happened in Somalia, we'd have a lot of earnest talk about the dangers of a failed society. If it had happened in Syria, Lindsey Graham might liquefy entirely and disappear in a rush down a storm drain. But it happened here, in the exceptional home of American exceptionalism, so, once again, we will be told that Alison Parker and Adam Ward are merely more of the price we pay for the exceptional exceptionalism of a free society.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a37435/the-virginia-tv-shooting/

 
At 4:22 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Tom, you have convinced me. We have too many guns in America. We should force all of the law-abiding citizens to register and then turn their guns in. That will surely solve the problem.

God help us, I pray!

 
At 4:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

T. Paine, you're a sarcastic asshole, aren't you.

Gun control: it's worked in every other country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTyQ4Q8z-D8

 
At 4:43 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

TP

I agree with you,
every law abiding gun owner should turn in their guns.

Well said.

As for Anonymous 4:27, he/she or it is a gender confused progressive who doesn't know if they should use the bathroom with the M or W on the door.
Why else would they not use a name?

 
At 4:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, sore loser, vanessa, harry, anonymous, etc....

There's a reason you were abandoned at birth. Remember that.

 
At 5:19 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...


Even terrorists can't keep up with American killers.

Human sacrifice is part of what makes America so exceptional. It will continue. Blame Hillary. Blame liberals. Just never blame the NRA or manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction.

I wonder if our friends on the Right know who endowed us with the term "American exceptionalism"?

Shall we tell them it's Joseph Stalin they are repeating?

 
At 5:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- The Democratic National Committee barely has more cash than it does IOUs, and it is being outraised month after month by its Republican competitor. Maybe Obama can get China to float them a loan?


 
At 6:18 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Yep, all the experts agree that civilian gun control works. Lets look at the examples from the 20th century alone: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot. Yep. If we pass more "gun free" zones, that should solve the problem.... except for the malls, schools, and movie theaters where massacres occurred in GUN FREE ZONES.

A gun is a tool. It is no more evil or good then the person using it. What we need to do is to teach our children a respect and reverence for life once again. Then, maybe, we can start to eliminate these evil acts.

Disarming those law-abiding people so that they have no way to defend themselves simply makes the whole country a "gun free zone" that the violent ARMED criminals can prey upon.

Dubya, you are right about human sacrifice, but probably not in the way you mean. The left cries for those on death row, but gladly makes child sacrifices to their god whom they have named "Choice".

And America has lost its exceptionalism, because we are so damned intent on becoming enlightened godless socialists just like the rest of Europe. Stalin would be proud... now.

 
At 6:23 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Ah,cough, cough, err Davy,


Maybe you should check deeper in the sources of your dogma.

"The theory of the exceptionalism of the U.S. can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the country as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840. The exact term "American exceptionalism" has been in use since at least the 1920s and saw more common use after Soviet leader Joseph Stalin allegedly chastised members of the Jay Lovestone-led faction of the American Communist Party for their belief that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions". However, this story has been challenged because the expression "American exceptionalism" was already used by Brouder & Zack in Daily Worker (N.Y.) on the 29th of January 1929, before Lovestone's visit to Moscow. In addition, Fred Shapiro, editor of The Yale Book of Quotations, has noted that "exceptionalism" was used to refer to the United States and its self-image during the Civil War by The Times on August 20, 1861."


American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is inherently different from other nations.

 
At 7:45 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Good one, Chuckie. Nice to see you looking up information for a change.

Dogma? How so?

"Stalin would be proud... now." = Dogma.

In other words 'American exceptionalism" is repeating the words originally credited to communists, that Stalin popularized. In 2009, President Obama said in Strasbourg, France, that he subscribed to American exceptionalism.

You're in good company, eh?

TP,

Your list of dictators ignores every other country that doesn't have anywhere near our body count.

It amounts to acceptable deaths if nothing is done about it. You don't have to see the gun slaughter as human sacrifice to the Second Amendment.

But it is. Whatever makes you feel better.

We not only accept this exceptionalism, we fuel it with more weapons. The more guns out there, the easier it is for crazies to get them. Will you agree with this fact?

Fewer guns would mean fewer deaths. It is only sensible to improve background checks to restrict purchases by those who shouldn't have them. The Charleston killer would be one example.

But the NRA says, "Hell no!" Forget what most Americans want.

I've told you I have always had firearms. I do not support confiscation from responsible owners, but I do think it would be good to expand a guns for cash program to reduce the number out there.

It would also help if we accepted the fact that expanding community mental health care would help. Unfortunately that would be denounced as "evil socialism" that would make Stalin proud, wouldn't it?



 
At 10:00 PM, Anonymous Keith Barron said...

Tom,

This is one of the best essays you have written - and I say that as someone who was raised with guns, taught to shoot at a young age, and, as a child, reloaded handgun, rifle, and shotgun rounds for my father. I still have family who collect and use firearms in a responsible way. And I understand their 2nd Amendment argument - the problem we face is that we are a very different country today compared to the 1950's and 1960's. The sheer increase in population is enough to tip the scales. As you point out in your piece, and I agree, the horrors of three years ago should have resulted in some type of change. On December 14, 2012, I flew alone from Sarasota to Atlanta to Tokyo to Taipei to recruit students at National Kaohsuing University of Hospitality and Tourism. AS I took the high speed rail from Taipei to Kaohsuing, I might as well have been on the moon. When I finally made it to my room in the University's Elite House, a student-run hotel, the only English speaking channel I received was CNN Hong Kong. For the entire week I was there, nothing but funeral after funeral, debate after debate. I was numb. It seemed inconceivable to me that so many children had been senselessly slaughtered. The murders yesterday on live TV, while shocking, and as you point out, historic in a really bad way, leave me sad and disappointed. My father was a lifetime charter member of the NRA. He would never have written anything like this. But I have to wonder what his reaction would have been had he lived to see December 2012 and yesterday. You are correct, New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the country - precisely why family members of mine refuse to live there. While I oppose an outright ban on legally obtained and registered firearms, I agree with you that something must be done to tighten up the southern states. Maybe someone will listen this time. "Free, as a bird...."

 
At 10:38 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Great comment, Keith. I'm reposting that one on Facebook. Keep 'em coming, pal!

Tom

 
At 10:38 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Great comment, Keith. I'm reposting that one on Facebook. Keep 'em coming, pal!

Tom

 
At 10:32 AM, Blogger T. Paine said...

"Stalin would be proud... now." = Dogma.

Dave, if that is your definition of “dogma”, then I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Further, the fact that America has slowly but seemingly inexorably moved towards socialism as a society over the last 50 years probably would indeed create a warm spot in ol’ Josef Stalin’s cold black heart. That is simply speculation based on observation, Dave. Not dogma.

Also when our beloved President Obama used that term in Strasbourg, France, he said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

In other words, according to Obama, every nation believes in their own exceptionalism, whether it is warranted or not. It is another example of Obama’s progressive mentality. Everyone is “exceptional” so therefore, nobody is exceptional. We all should get participation trophies so that no nation’s feelings are hurt accordingly. He truly does not understand America at his essence, and evidently neither do the Americans that were foolish enough to elect him and then as useless as football-bats to re-elect the idiot.

As for guns, again I state that they are tools. It is the evil in men’s hearts that is the problem. Hell, the first recorded murder in human history was done with a rock when Cain slew Abel. Do you suppose if God had enacted “rock control” and not made so many of them available that Abel could have lived a lot longer life? Or do you think Cain would have found another way to kill his brother?

As for the scumbag racist evil Charleston killer, if I recall correctly, his idiot father gave him that gun as a birthday gift. Yep, he gave his drug addict son a gun. Sounds to me like more gun control laws wouldn’t have stopped this crime, but his father sure as hell should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I have no problems with back-ground checks to keep felons, the mentally unstable, and those with domestic abuse issues from obtaining weapons. What I do have a problem with is our government telling what kind and amount of guns we can own. I do have a huge problem with them insisting on government registration of our guns. That is always the first step towards confiscation. I am tired of the Obama administration trying to sign us on to the UN small arms treaty and to create programs like operation choke point to restrict and remove guns, all the while he sits protected by guns carried by the Secret Service. I guess his life is more important than ours, huh? That is about as funny as an argument for gun control being made by a youtube video of an Australian comedian. Ridiculous…

 
At 10:44 AM, Blogger T. Paine said...

"...the horrors of three years ago should have resulted in some type of change."

Keith, with all due respect, sir, what kind of changes would have prevented this horrific event? That evil and unstable boy stole his mother's improperly stored weapons, killed her, and then went to the school? What gun control law would have changed that? His mother, at the very least should have made certain that her weapons were always locked away, especially knowing that she had a mentally disturbed son in the house.

I live in Utah. Several years ago, a gun man came into the "gun free zone" of Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City and started killing people. Luckily an off-duty police officer was there eating dinner with his family. He heard the shooting and with his own service weapon was able to keep the gun man pinned down so that he was unable to kill more people until more police arrived.

Guns are not the problem. Narcissism and a total lack of respect of life and an embracing of our new culture of death in this country is the problem. Until we educate our children that we are all children of God and all deserving of each other's respect and acts of dignity accordingly, we will continue to see such horrific events. Everyone is concerned with their own rights, but nobody pays attention to their responsibilities.

This evil man that shot those reporters felt he had been slighted so his solution was to shoot them on live TV in order to make a name for himself. Such wanton disregard for life is the problem, I would submit to you, sir.

If we were to successfully remove all guns from this country, which you must admit is an impossibility, we would still have similar problems. We would only be addressing the symptom and not the actual problem, Keith.

 
At 4:36 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

TP,
Your belief is part of the dogma of the far Right. Call it “speculation” if you like. Stalin was a communist dictator, not a liberal, not a progressive. The dogma of the far Right disagrees, of course.

Merriam Webster:
Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

It is the evil in men’s hearts that is the problem.

Simplistic as this may be, the point is taken. I would mention mental illness and Right Wing hate also contribute to the slaughter, with the latter being truly evil.

The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat
Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.

In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.


We see since 9-11 Right Wing killers killed more Americans than terrorists. Hating liberals is a 24/7 pastime on FOX (R) and talk radio. The hate drove James Adkisson to open fire in a Unitarian church because he was deliberately targeting liberals. Numerous other examples further indicate the scope of this hate.

So Secret Service for Obama sends a different “message” than it did with Bush? It’s the “OK If You Are Republican” rule again.

Obama administration trying to sign us on to the UN small arms treaty

More paranoid “Obama’s coming to take our guns” dogma.

Snopes explains.

if I recall correctly, his idiot father gave him that gun as a birthday gift. Yep, he gave his drug addict son a gun.

No, his father just gave him the money. He bought the weapon. As I already mentioned, “It is only sensible to improve background checks to restrict purchases by those who shouldn't have them. The Charleston killer would be one example.”

I really try to be truthful, you know.

A background check failure allowed Dylann Roof to illegally purchase a .45-caliber Glock handgun on April 11.

And as for expanding background checks, the NRA still dictates, “Hell, no!” Sounds evil to me.

Speaking of evil. Meanwhile from a hero of the Far Right:

“the # of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism,” - Ignorant Baboon

- The Famous stalker/killer George Zimmerman quoting Obama in his confederate flag avatar emblazoned tweet.

Isn’t it quaint what these Right Wingers can say and still be defended as “not racist”?

 
At 4:44 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

what kind of changes would have prevented this horrific event? That evil and unstable boy stole his mother's improperly stored weapons, killed her, and then went to the school?

Not selling military grade weapons to the public could have reduced the body count. Better mental health care could have helped. Damn socialism!

The killer's mother's fondness for such weapons, combined with knowing her son was unbalanced certainly contributed to the situation.

That's what happens when you mix guns with crazy and stupid. But, hey, that's freedom.

 
At 5:30 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...


For me, the argument is a complex one and both “sides” have valid points. Unfortunately, rarely do you ever see ANY concrete suggestion being debated. Rather, you see caricatures of positions being emotionally attacked. And, no serious citizen is aloof to the horror of innocent people being harmed or killed by gun violence. People weaken their argument and lose credibility in my eyes when they suggest it.

The crux of the argument typically involves the juxtaposition of the issues of public safety/well-being and individual freedom. Both of which are fair issues to consider.

There are similar arguments to be made for a ban on (or at least FAR stricter controls on) the purchase and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Just like guns, alcohol has safe and legitimate uses, and requires responsible users. Just like guns, there are laws against unlawful possession/use. And, just like guns, in the hands of the wrong people, legal alcohol contributes to the deaths of far too many innocent people every year in automobile accidents. Not to mention the misery it causes who knows how many innocent children living in the homes of alcoholic parents – particularly fathers.

So, in light of the fact that the alcohol issue receives essentially NO serious consideration for even the slightest modification to availability (and the fact that drunk-driving related deaths don’t receive national attention in the media), one has to conclude that there is something else fundamental to the gun issue that makes it different. It isn’t the contribution to public safety (or lack thereof) because alcohol could be considered even worse on that account by the numbers. So, what is it? Frankly, that’s what has me puzzled. And, I am one who enjoys a good beer or glass of wine from time to time. I’m not suggesting we bring Prohibition back.

As for the “what ifs” I think we need to be careful not to speculate too much. I’m for broad 2nd amendment rights generally, but I don’t think I’m so omniscient as to judge whether we have the right legislative balance in gun laws today. It is a difficult topic and oversimplification abounds…

 
At 6:08 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Let's think for a second about the background check for gun purchases and the right to privacy.

The Constitution does not mention the right to privacy. Says not one word.
BUT the Supreme Court has said certain Amendments to the Constitution have made the right to privacy a constitutional right, even though those amendments do not use the word privacy.

The right to privacy has extended now to a persons medical and mental conditions.
While this right (to privacy) has been expanded, it has made it impossible for a seller of firearms to do a background check on the mental stability of a potential buyer. To do so would violate that persons right to privacy. Now I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most potential buyers of a firearm are who are mentally unstable when asked if they are, will say "I'm ok". And the seller has no way to verify this as the truth, unlike the ability of a back ground check to uncover a past criminal record preventing them from buying a firearm..

Would the solution be for any person buying a firearm that they would give up their right to privacy and would allow their background check to include medical/mental records check? I can see problems galore with this idea because it could be the first step in reversing the entire collection of Supreme court right to privacy actions, including the basis for legal abortion, IE privacy between a Dr and their patient.

But ask yourself, which kills more humans in a year, guns or abortions? And ask yourself is the right to privacy, not found in the non amended Constitution, a safe SPUSA creation for the lives of our citizens both born and unborn?

Now experience has taught me the push back on this post from the left will be strong if not pure knee jerk with lots of name calling, swearing, assumptions about me, as can be expected when a radical idea of how to reduce the number of innocent deaths of humans is presented that includes the murder of humans in the womb of their mother.

Sorry about that, but this is what the created right to privacy has brought about in our society.

 
At 6:20 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Dave, I am getting tired of your empty rhetoric, my friend. “I would mention mental illness and Right Wing hate also contribute to the slaughter, with the latter being truly evil.” Have evil people who claim to be politically on the right done horrendous acts? You bet. And I know of even more good right-wing people that condemn them and celebrate their capture or demise. No good person condones such evilly motivated violence…ever!

Why don’t we hear the same from the left when one of their own commits evil acts? Often times instead they try to justify or mitigate what the evil bastards have done, whether it be the Weatherman Underground bombings or the Earth Liberation Front, Black Panthers, Animal Liberation Front, SEIU attackers, Occupy Wall Street criminals etc. Indeed this very story that Tom posted on here was perpetrated by an evil man with left wing biases claiming to be slighted because of his race. How come we don’t hear about that in the news reports? If he was a Tea Party supporter, you damned sure bet we would all know about that ad nauseum.

As for media personalities, how many times has Ed Schulz on MSNBC said that conservatives should be killed? Same with the leftist “comedian” Bill Maher saying how Sarah Palin is one of the first of the useless people that need to be killed. I have NEVER heard anyone advocate even jokingly about that on Beck or Hannity’s shows.

“So Secret Service for Obama sends a different ‘message’ than it did with Bush? It’s the ‘OK If You Are Republican’ rule again.”

Cut the crap. The Secret Service NEEDS to protect the president regardless of his party. The difference is that Obama is a $%@$ing hypocrite. He is protected by men with guns but he doesn’t think we peasants should be allowed to have the means to defend ourselves. Bush generally supported our 2nd amendment rights.

As for the UN small arms treaty, it is just another incremental step in trying to infringe on our individual second amendment rights. The same goes for his Operation Choke Point and trying to ban certain types of ammunition for the AR-15. He knows he cannot outright ban guns without a revolution starting, but he can slowly turn up the burner until he boils the frog to death. Look at how he wanted to ban firearm ownership for certain veterans on social security.

I have no problems with comprehensive background checks to keep the mentally disturbed, felons, or violent individuals from getting firearms. I would feel better if the damned Obama administration would actually start prosecuting all of those folks that did try to acquire a firearm when they were legally disqualified from doing so though.

As for the fool Zimmerman, I don’t know of ANYONE on the right that considers him to be their spokesman, let alone a hero. More foolishness, Dave.

 
At 6:21 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

“Not selling military grade weapons to the public could have reduced the body count.”

An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon. It is not fully automatic. Further, this is just more nonsense. I can see Obama and the left’s idea of abiding by the 2nd amendment. They would say “you can all have guns as long as they are .22 caliber derringers.” Good grief. I bet those good folks that lived in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina were damned glad they had an AR-15 with 30 round magazines when the looters came by to plunder their properties and families. Same goes for those law abiding citizens living in south central LA after the Rodney King incident when they were trying to protect their stores, homes, and families from rioters. I live along the Rocky Mountains on a fault line. Someday there will be an earthquake here. I don’t want to have to defend my home and family with a government approved 2-shot derringer just because you leftists think I am not worthy of having a “scary” weapon like an AR-15. Yep, let’s disarm the law-abiding so that only the God damned evil people will have firearms. Flipping amazing!

Harley, your reasoned approach is to be applauded. As for why the disparity between guns and alcohol, well… I would suggest that the government is not afraid of drunks, but it is concerned over an armed citizenry. That is not to say I am for a revolution or violence against the government, before someone else goes off on that tangent. I am simply saying that if a government does become corrupt, evil, and tyrannical and violates citizens’ rights, they are far less apt to do so if the populace has some means of resistance.

 
At 6:27 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

"But ask yourself, which kills more humans in a year, guns or abortions? And ask yourself is the right to privacy, not found in the non amended Constitution, a safe SPUSA creation for the lives of our citizens both born and unborn?"

GREAT points Chuck! Hang in there. I got your back for the coming onslaught against you! :)

 
At 6:37 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,
The NRA has for all practical purposes, shuts down all legislative discussion or debate of the issue. They will not compromise.

I see anti-drunk driving ads all the time. Not a peep about firearm responsibility or consequences.

Penalties for drunk driving have been increasing, as organizations like MADD and government advertising has kept the issue alive.

From DOT:

However, drunk driving awareness and enforcement efforts such as Zero Tolerance Laws may be having a positive impact.The percentage of alcohol-related fatalities decreased from 50.6 percent in 1990 to 42 percent in 2009.


Chuckie,

There would be no invasion of privacy if the person didn't try to buy a gun. It is that act alone that would open his name to disclosure. Personal details could be left out, just listing his name would be sufficient.

The Fourth Amendment doesn't have the word "privacy" in it, but it protects us from search and seizure without warrant. Privacy of person and effects is implied in that respect.

 
At 7:47 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

TP,

Why don’t we hear the same from the left when one of their own commits evil acts?

Sorry, liberals don't kill as many people as your side does. If, or when, they do, I will condemn it.

No good person condones such evilly motivated violence…ever!

Then stop demonizing liberals. Condemn hate radio and every other voice that says liberals are destroying America, liberals hate and envy the rich, liberals are godless commies, etc.

Or is that your dogma? Hate has its ugly fruits, my friend. Let it go.

If you don't think that hate is fed by Right Wing radio and TV, you are the naive one

Where did I say anything about disarming you? You asked a question and I answered it. If that Bushmaster was not on the market, it would not have been used to kill children. THAT was part of my point to your question.

If they are marketed they will be abused. Period. Did you miss my point? You reacted so defensively and took it personally.

Can you cite ONE case where a 30 round mag was needed for self defense in New Orleans or anywhere else? If you can't defend yourself with ten rounds, you're hopeless anyway.

The Bushmaster and AR-15 are based on modern military weapons. They can be converted to full auto.

Let's take your position a step further. Why shouldn't we be allowed to have .50 cal. machine guns? How about mortars?

I want a rocket launcher to protect my freedom and family. Why can't I have one?

I'm serious. Why not?

You are delusional to think your rifles will stop a military/police state power. Besides, anti-authoritarian liberals are always the first targets of tyranny.

"First they came for the unions"...

By the way, Hitler didn't ban guns. The Weimar Republic imposed registration.

The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban

The gun culture is right about one thing, however. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. But it was in 1938, not 1935 – well after the Nazis already had the country in its iron grip. Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition.








 
At 10:16 PM, Anonymous Charlton Heston said...

Hey Tom,

How come you never talk about the gun murders in Obama's stomping grounds, Chitown?

I am confused.

Is it politically incorrect to talk about black on black crime in the Chitown Liberal Plantation built by the Democrats?

Here are some stats for you to look at and have a good rant!

http://heyjackass.com/
Year To Date: Shot & Killed: 279


http://homicides.suntimes.com/2015/06/01/police-161-murders-in-151-days-in-chicago/

 
At 10:57 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

There would be no invasion of privacy if the person didn't try to buy a gun. It is that act alone that would open his name to disclosure. Personal details could be left out, just listing his name would be sufficient."

HUH? So Davy, what are you saying is the solution to the mentally unstable buying firearms?

The 2nd Amendment clearly states the right to own and bear firearms.. The 4th Amendment says nothing about privacy. Are you willing to do away the IMPLIED view of the 4th in order to stop the mentally unstable from buying a firearm?

I stand amazed at the hue and cry over the tragic deaths by firearm in numbers no where near the numbers of deaths of humans still in their mothers wombs allowed by the IMPLIE meaning of privacy claimed to be in the 4th. Would those on the left be as
outraged if the body parts of those killed by guns were sold as they are over the parts of humans being sold after they are killed by abortion?

 
At 11:18 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

No parts are sold. That is illegal. They are donated. The propaganda film makers failed to get PP to charge more than the costs of transferring tissue.

I guess they just can't comprehend a lack of greed or being within the law.

Neither liberals nor conservatives have a problem with organ transplants to save lives.

Why is he so confused?

Now, why can't I have my rocket launcher???

 
At 2:57 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

So "donating" the parts of those murdered by guns by the person who committed the murder is ok with you Davy?

You have stretched the bounds of common human decency by comparing the donating organs from those who either said in advance it was their desire to do so or dead persons family agrees to do so, to the human parts harvesting done at PPH.

Once again the true face of liberalism is exposed when a discussion turns toward their sacrament of abortion.

In the meantime, the solution for preventing the mentally unstable from buying a firearm is ignored in the rush to defend the murder of thousands of humans while in their mothers womb.

How do you sleep at night?

 
At 2:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Morre's twisted analogy between the donation of fetal tissue for research purposes and homicide by firearms speaks volumes to the hopelessness of sane discourse. These defects, who sincerely believe that they are making valid points of political insight are the reasons rational gun control will fail. As long as these sorts of people regurgitate their ideological vomitus, no resolution of senseless gun violence will be had. Compromise takes at least two rational perspectives to work. Mr. Morre proves that to be impossible.

 
At 1:02 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Ok Mr. Anonymous 2:58 PM which of your liberal positions do you want to comprise?

 
At 6:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Morre: I am willing to compromise all of them PROVIDED there is an intelligent public policy position on your side to work with. Rational gun control can be achieved but not with the insane who conflate fetal tissue research with gun homicides. Get it?

 
At 8:05 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

T. Paine: "That is not to say I am for a revolution or violence against the government, before someone else goes off on that tangent. I am simply saying that if a government does become corrupt, evil, and tyrannical and violates citizens’ rights, they are far less apt to do so if the populace has some means of resistance." [NOTE: Bold font my own.]

So you're insinuating that current gun laws have been the reason our current government isn't corrupt, isn't evil, isn't tyrannical, and doesn't violate citizens' rights?

Mr. Paine, I realize you live in one of the most fundamentally conservative states in the nation, but don't you realize you're only providing fodder for the stereotype that Utahans are totally clueless when it comes to what's really happening in this country, when you make statements like that?

 
At 8:39 AM, Anonymous Jefferson's Accordian said...

"In the shit-for-brains regions of the United States, obtaining a gun is about as easy as obtaining a garden hose. "

Rain, do you concur with Tom's assessment of your region?


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed and hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world....

I would imagine that that Karl Marx would shed tears of joy if he heard John sing Imagine.

 
At 9:21 AM, Anonymous Bernie Sanders said...

"If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don't think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen."

 
At 12:02 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Mr. Anonymous,

Let me understand you, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
You are willing to compromise if and ONLY if, the other side meets certain standards you are imposing on the, am I correct?

If I am, how is that a compromise? Isn't that stacking the deck?

I've offered a compromise on the problem of the mentally unstable buying firearms, and included the possible pitfalls if it was accepted. No one responded to my offer other than to say, the solution is to not buy the gun. What the hell is that?

If the goal of this discussion is to reduce the number of murders committed, I'll offer this compromise.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment in exchange for ending the right to abortion except in the case of rape incest and the life of the mother. Think of all the human lives this would save in one year.

I know the argument that there will still be back ally abortions, etc, but couldn't the same be said for the repeal of the 2nd and stronger gun laws? An example, Chicago has very strong laws covering gun ownership. Have these laws stopped the murders by guns in Chicago? Yet those who are the strongest in their position of more gun control, are willing to enact even stronger laws, knowing all the while that those laws have proven to be ineffective in meeting their goal IE reduction of murders by gun.

I am willing to run that same risk by making abortion illegal. I believe however, that the effect of my compromise would result in a much higher reduction in the number of humans murdered (in their mothers womb, even with the exceptions I've offered), than the repeal of the 2nd would reduce the numbers of humans murdered by guns.

So, I am willing to compromise in order to reduce the number of humans murdered in America each year, are you?

 
At 2:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Morre: You offered a diatribe that equated the use of fetal tissue for research with homicide by guns. Now, you want to barter the repeal of the Second Amendment for a repeal of a portion of the First? That is insanity. One cannot compromise with the insane. Re- read your comment of 2:57 PM. Don't add congenital prevaricator to your diagnosis.

 
At 2:58 PM, Anonymous Confused Progressive said...

John Lennon said he was more popular than Jesus Christ.

How come he didn't rise from the Dead?

 
At 4:54 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

There are a lot of funny Hillary bumper stickers out there.

My favorite so far:

"Make Chelsea Clinton the new ambassador to Libya. What difference does it make?"

 
At 6:01 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Why is he so confused? I asked.

So Chuckie spews:

So "donating" the parts of those murdered by guns by the person who committed the murder is ok with you Davy?

Apparently so he can become even more confused. I swear he operates from anti-logic and anti-reason.

You have stretched the bounds of common human decency by comparing the donating organs from those who either said in advance it was their desire to do so

Planned Parenthood tissue donation requires consent from the patient.

How can he sleep holding so much hate? Ah, the willful ignorance gives him comfort.

I'm still wondering why I can't have a rocket launcher for self-protection and for "Second Amendment Remedies" against the largest military in the world.

 
At 6:12 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Mr. Anonymous,

"a diatribe that equated the use of fetal tissue for research with homicide by guns"

No, what I said was the murder of a human outside or inside its' mother womb, regardless what tool was used to end the life is still murder! What I tried to do and it seems my effort was not with in the scope of you mind to comprehend, or you simply do not want to consider the point, is , would the use of a human's body parts parts murdered by a gun be any worse than the use of parts from a baby human murdered in it's others womb. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem ok with the baby parts and not the outside the womb body parts.
My next question to you would by why?

But honestly if your heart felt desire is to reduce the number of humans murdered each year in America, why
A. would you not want to end abortion.
B. take my offered compromise on the 2nd?

Do you feel gun violence is a problem? Then why, when offered a reasonable solution to the problem refuse to consider it because it involves ending the right to murder a human in it's mothers womb and then to use it's parts for research as if it where a lab mouse instead of a human?

T.P has offered the solution of all legal owners of guns turning there guns in as a way of ending the gun violence. No one has taken him up and the offer.
Why?
Could it be because you know in your heart that legal owners of guns are NOT the problem?

I also find it interesting when your are met with a compromise you find reason's not to respond to them in a way that can work towards a solution.

I'll say it again, the 2nd Amendment stands un-modified by the SCUSA. Yet the 4th Amendment under which the right to kill a human while it is it's mother's womb, and which prevents gun ownership by the mentally unstable being enforced, has been modified by the SCUSA several times.


It is you Mr Anonymous who is unwilling to comprise to reach your STATED goals of reducing/ending gun violence, not me.

 
At 6:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Planned Parenthood tissue donation requires consent from the patient."

You mean the human being aborted singes a consent form?

 
At 6:53 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

TP,
We appreciate that Zimmerman isn't a hero to you. But he has a lot of love, and cash donations, for his infamy.

From GQ:

There was only one media figure he liked: Hannity. Fortunately, Hannity—and especially Hannity’s viewers on Fox News—liked him back. George, whose legal debt was in the seven figures, briefly had a website that accepted PayPal donations, and it lit up every time Hannity mentioned the incident on-air.

You explain:

The Secret Service NEEDS to protect the president regardless of his party. The difference is that Obama is a $%@$ing hypocrite. He is protected by men with guns but he doesn’t think we peasants should be allowed to have the means to defend ourselves

Is that so? Never heard him say that. Evidence please.

All of this is so beside the point. Obama has never, and will never, take anyone's guns. We see a lot of anger over this even though is not real.

he can slowly turn up the burner until he boils the frog to death. Look at how he wanted to ban firearm ownership for certain veterans on social security.

The slippery slope fallacy aside, the "certain veterans" would be prevented from purchasing weapons on the same grounds as "certain civilians".

As you have already agreed:

I have no problems with comprehensive background checks to keep the mentally disturbed, felons, or violent individuals from getting firearms.

Believe it or not, there are veterans that fit these conditions.

Obama has never, and will never, take anyone's guns. But that doesn't stop the Right's deliberately cultivated anger and hate in the least.

 
At 9:22 PM, Anonymous Karl Marx said...

Communism differs from all previous movements in that it overturns the basis of all earlier relations of production and intercourse, and for the first time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of hitherto existing men, strips them of their natural character and subjugates them to the power of the united individuals.

 
At 10:33 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

Dave,

My point was that never do you hear anyone seriously debate whether restrictions on the ability to purchase alcohol should be considered. I agree that there have been moves to increase awareness of the issue and increase the punishments for misuse. But, never a discussion on whether to limit availability of alcohol, save the age restriction implemented a few decades ago. Also, as to the DOT statistics... as usual, they don't always tell the whole story. In the same timeframe, vehicle design for crash survival improved greatly as well (crumple zones, air bags). And, seat belt use has increased as well. Not to downplay the MADD type campaigns. All for it. Just not sure to what extent they played a factor.

Anyway, I really don't have a salient point for the discussion, other than to point out an interesting observation...

 
At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.chaunceydevega.com/2015/08/why-arent-families-of-vester-flanagans.html

Why Aren't the Families of Vester Flanagan's Murder Victims Being Asked if They Forgive Him Yet?


Have at it, TrollOrphanBoy

 
At 2:07 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Too Dreadful For Words

Harris County authorities in Texas have a man in custody in Friday's shooting death of a sheriff's deputy, Sheriff Ron Hickman said at a press conference Saturday. The suspect, Shannon J. Miles, has a previous criminal history including resisting arrest and disorderly conduct with a firearm. He is being charged with capital murder.

Hickman says the shooting was "unprovoked" and the department is still looking for a motive for the "cold-blooded assassination" of the officer at a Houston-area gas station.

Deputy Darren Goforth, 47, was fatally shot in the back late Friday while filling his patrol car in northwest Harris County. Hickman said ballistics tests showed a match between the weapon used to kill Goforth and a weapon in Miles' possession.

Hickman, in discussing the shooting with reporters at an earlier press conference, condemned the "very dangerous national rhetoric" about police officers that he said was out of control.

Officials said Miles is the individual captured on surveillance video. He was apprehended, Hickman said, by locating the red Ford pick-up scene on the surveillance video, which was parked near where Miles resided.

On the video, the dark-skinned man is shown approaching Goforth from behind and shooting him several times in the back. The shooter continued to fire even after the officer had fallen to the ground.

Hickman said Goforth was apparently singled out only because he was wearing the uniform of a law enforcement officer. The sheriff made it clear he felt the shooting was tied to a national backlash over several recent killings of unarmed black people by police officers.

"When rhetoric ramps up to the point where cold-blooded assassination has happened, this rhetoric has gotten out of control," he said. "We heard 'black lives matter.' All lives matter. Well, cops' lives matter too, so why don't we drop the qualifier and say 'lives matter' and take that to the bank. USA Today

Too Dreadful For Words

Babies Born Alive After Botched Abortions are being Murdered or Left to Die Globally

They are physically strangled, mutilated, or left to die on the abortionist’s table.

It’s unthinkable, but it happens. The worst part is these babies survive the brutal act of abortion (attempted killing) only to be savagely killed or left to die thereafter.

In fact, the phenomenon is recurrent enough that the World Health Organization has assigned an ICD-10 code for mortality – cause of death – covering it. One scholarly medical journal shockingly reported that as many as one out of every thirty attempted late-term abortions could result in a live birth (more on that below).

Guess Tom missed these dreadful bits of news.

 
At 2:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

dark-skinned man!

 
At 2:49 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Wendy Walsh @DrWendyWalsh

That black brain surgeon joining the GOP? Isn't that like a deer joining the NRA?

Liberal racism.

Dark skinned man, well that's what the video tapes captured and witness at the murder site said.
Do you have a problem with that information being shared?

 
At 3:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have no problem with that info being shared, but you definitely have an agenda, "Chuck" (sore loser, etc.)

Dark skinned man! Eeeek!

 
At 4:38 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuckie has an agenda alright. "Liberals are racists" and "It's fine for cops to shoot unarmed black men", seem to fit his agenda.

Well well. Chuckie has compassion for someone. When a cop is murdered by a black man it’s “too dreadful for words”. The other way around? Not so dreadful. Also “not racist”, right?

Chuckie wonders why any black person could possibly have a grudge against cops.

The sheriff wants to blame black folks’ “rhetoric”, while oblivious to the reason for it; the unarmed black men shot in the back, or sitting in their car. Gee why do you suppose that is? Those uppity blacks just refuse to know their place it seems. The nerve of them to say “Black lives matter”.

It is terrible when babies are killed. We'll never know how many babies, toddlers, and older children were killed by Bush's war in Iraq. Netenyahu can kill as many babies and kids as he wants, as long as their Palestinian. But that's different cause they were Muslim kids, or something. Innocent adults were killed with them, so it's OK, Amirite?

Of course that’s all fine for our “pro-life” Chuckie. Chuckie understands those were “terrorist babies”.

 
At 6:22 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Wow, freedom of information is now limited because the criminal may have a dark skin?. That's an agenda.

Is this racism?

HOUSTON, Texas – Armed Black Panther members marched in front of the Waller County jail and shouted, “You’re gonna stop doing what you’re doing, or we will start creeping up on you in the darkness.”

Of course not in the liberal mind, the cops got it coming to them for what they have done.

Is this too "Too Dreadful for Words"?

Black lives matter Marchers in St. Paul chanted in unison, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.”

Just like those babies murdered in their mothers womb got it coming to them for what they have done, right liberal boy trolls?


P.S. The leading candidate for the Democrat nomination for President, MS Clinton, didn't she vote for the war vs Iraq?

BTW Davy, do you believe what Jesus said about himself?
Have you responded in an intelligent manner to my offers and comprise to end gun violence?

How many cops have to be murdered by blacks for them to no longer hold a grudge?

Do your co workers know how you feel about law enforcement officers? Do you think they will come to your aid if they knew your feelings?

 
At 9:20 AM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

What group of people is most responsible for the deaths of black people in America?

 
At 10:20 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

What group of people is most responsible for the deaths of white people in America?

 
At 10:21 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Now for the answer to both questions. Males.

 
At 11:10 AM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

Did I miss something? I thought we were all having fun talking about race...
If we don't keep race in the picture, then we can call each other racists... c'mon, that's no fun!

 
At 12:04 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

I was away on a short vacation for a few days, but I see nothing has changed since I have been gone.

“Chuckie has an agenda alright. "Liberals are racists" and "It's fine for cops to shoot unarmed black men", seem to fit his agenda.”

I haven’t seen where Chuck said that, but I have seen where the left has called conservatives “racists”.

And I have NEVER seen anybody say that it is okay for cops to shoot unarmed black men. Let me add a caveat though. If that unarmed black man is a punk-ass thug and tries to take the cop’s weapon, then I think deadly force can and should be used. Instead a “gentle giant” with a criminal history of violence is portrayed as a victim and many fools riot and destroy their own town because this idiot was shot, and deservingly so. He reaped what he sowed.

When cops shoot anyone, regardless of their color, without having valid and legal justification to do so, then the cop becomes the criminal and should be prosecuted accordingly. All of that said, cops lives matter too. They are trying to do a dangerous and often thankless job. Most cops are very good people, but there are a few bad ones that do bring huge media attention towards them. The bad ones should be made examples of. And people, including black people, need to comply with policemen’s lawful orders. By doing so, it is far less likely that a situation could devolve into a dangerous confrontation.

“It is terrible when babies are killed. We'll never know how many babies, toddlers, and older children were killed by Bush's war in Iraq. Netenyahu can kill as many babies and kids as he wants, as long as their Palestinian. But that's different cause they were Muslim kids, or something. Innocent adults were killed with them, so it's OK, Amirite?”

No Dave, you are NOT right. Evidently it is indeed terrible when babies are killed, unless it is done by Planned Parenthood. And we probably will not know how many babies and children were killed in the Iraq war. We also do not know how many were SAVED from Saddam’s evil regime.
As for Netanyahu, well, let’s just say I am not surprised you take the Palestinian side. You don’t see Israelis strap on bombs and go into Gaza markets to kill as many civilians as they can. No-- that phenomena is relegated only to the poor Palestinian “victims”. The Palestinians decried the fact that Israel built a wall keeping them out of Israel, but interestingly enough terrorist attacks decreased an order of magnitude since doing so.

It is funny how the Palestinians will launch mortar or missile attacks from civilian areas like residences, schools, and hospitals, and then claim that Israel is murdering their children when they retaliate to take out those launch sites. Saddam used the same heinous practices of hiding military targets within civilian areas.

The rest of the Arab world could take in the Palestinian people as refugees just as Israel takes in Jewish refugees from throughout the world, but those Arab states refuse to do so. They would rather have the issue to use against Israel, rather than actually resolve the problem. That seems to be the same with liberal doctrine. They rather not address the issue or perhaps just throw money at it while ignoring the actual causes. I guess that mindset exists throughout the world too.

 
At 2:48 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

Did you ever notice the people who say the most usually have the least to say?

 
At 5:59 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

In other words, you disagree with me so all of my points are invalid to you.

 
At 8:06 PM, Anonymous Smokey Lagumski said...

President Obama is in Alaska where supposedly he is being filmed for a TV show.

Hopefully he will be with the Brown family and their Alaskan Bush People show.

He will learn first hand that these people don't need EBT cards, food stamps, Obama phones and all the other free stuff courtesy of nanny state socialism.

Billy Brown will tell Obama that if he doesn't work he doesn't eat.

Obama and the Socialists so loved the Poor that they created millions more!

 
At 8:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Americans love violence and can't wait to hear about the days dead at evening news time. Like you showing a picture of John, dead. Scum like you just add to the love for death.

 
At 9:11 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Here you go Smoky:

http://www.adn.com/article/20140903/alaska-has-highest-rate-welfare-recipients-us-census-says

As a rule Conservatives are poorly informed because of highly partisan information sources that only cover a small portion of topics compared to Liberal ones. In politics you are what you read.

 
At 10:22 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...


James,
In politics you are what you read.

That's IF they even read. FOX (R) and talk radio are always there for their two minute hate and next round of the blame game.

And they read for retention only what supports their tightly held belief system. The rest, aka facts, and appeals to human decency and equality, they ignore.

He's clueless, but Smokey's parade of ignorance is really hilarious.

Alaska is a "takers" paradise. Their nanny state gives everybody a free check even.

You betcha!



 
At 11:52 AM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Yes, because liberals are the enlightened ones and only get their information from "enlightened" and "objective" sources. Give me a break.

I agree if one listens or reads just sources that agree with one's preconceived notions for one's information, then one will only reinforce what he already believes. This is true for both the left and the right.

Sadly, a vast majority of the media sources are complicit with the leftists' failed and foolish ideologies.

That said, I watch, listen, and read sources from both sides of the political spectrum. Often times the truth is found somewhere right of center. It is unfortunate that there isn't any truly objective and unbiased reporting of only the facts done anymore. Journalism is just another form of liberal activism nowadays, it would seem.

"That's IF they even read. FOX (R) and talk radio are always there for their two minute hate and next round of the blame game. And they read for retention only what supports their tightly held belief system. The rest, aka facts, and appeals to human decency and equality, they ignore."

Really Dave? Change out "Fox" for "MSNBC (D)" and talk radio for "NPR" and the EXACT same thing applies to most of the left. These left wing sources are agitating for division and hate just as much as anything ever done on Fox. Listen to an hour of Rachel Maddow and one can see this quite clearly.

 
At 12:42 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

TP,
It's unfortunate you equate FOX (R) and MSNBC. One is in every cable box and the other is an option that people must buy.

MSNBC is changing their format again too. I bet you don't remember MSNBC cancelling Phil Donahue, their highest rated program, because he was against Bush's war. Some "liberal media", eh?

You call it "liberal media" because journalism offers facts counter to the dogma of the far Right. I don't recall you mentioning Chris Matthews when he proclaimed, "We're all neocons now!" on Bush's idiotic "Mission Accomplished" stunt. More of the "liberal media", old buddy? Matthews may be slightly liberal, but he knows who butters his bread.

The basic fact is ALL nationally televised programming is by corporate media. They are corporations. What do corporations do? They seek profit. Profit comes before truth way too often.

What do corporate media do for access to power? They self censor and strive for that special "balance" you allude to. They are actually inbred with the Washington DC insider club.

If you fail to understand the nature of corporate media, you have little standing to criticize it. Right Wingers' "liberal media" lie is the same dogma that says "liberals hate and envy the rich" and "Liberals are destroying America".

Whenever a con defines or describes "liberal" he is biased. And they demonize 24/7.

Blame and scapegoating is all we ever hear or read from the radical far Right.

Often times the truth is found somewhere right of center.

So why do you regurgitate only the far Right dogma? In fact, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias", as Stephen Colbert explained in front of Bush at a White House Correspondents Dinner.

This is why the Right needs their own corporate media echo chambers like FOX(R) and talk/hate radio.

Corporate owned, and corporate biased, media are not radical enough for the far Right.

So the radical Right has to constantly "work the refs" and tilt the playing field.

The Right represents entrenched economic power. There is your bottom line.

Democracy and representation for the public are the antithesis of their ideology. Thus liberals must be demonized, for they are the voices supporting democracy and the public good.

I agree Maddow is liberal. This allows her to be more honest because she is less accountable to the economic elites. Any time you wish to compare fact checks between FOX and Maddow, bring it on, as your Decider once foolishly taunted.

















 
At 3:11 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

TP,
I should qualify this one: So why do you regurgitate only the far Right dogma?

This is in regard to the "liberal media" position of the Right which you embrace.

This is a broad generalization in your case, not so much with Chuckie the Republican propagandist. You have at least questioned corporate personhood and their cash as "free speech", so credit is given where due.

 
At 6:28 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

MSNBC keeps changing its format because it cannot hold but a pittance of viewers. As for Chris Matthews, he is a flaming bed-wetting liberal, just as 95% of the “journalists” employed by that station are, as well as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, and nearly all of the remaining large newspapers. Remember Chris having a “thrill run up his leg” when the messiah was elected?

I agree that each “news” outlet must answer to corporate holders. They have to have enough viewers or readers or listeners to make the corporate advertising sponsorship get a return on their investment. The only outlet that doesn’t have this restriction is National Politburo Radio (NPR) which is subsidized by the taxpayers.

The fact that you don’t even see that nearly all of the mainstream media reports with a leftist slant because that is where their proclivities lie, shows that you are the one that doesn’t understand the issue, sir. The absolutely fawning of the sycophantic media over Obama, especially in his first term, was disgusting for a supposedly unbiased group. Their hostility and adversarial approach to George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and Reagan was nearly constant in its contrast.

Even huge national issues are swept under the rug by the media if it is a leftist committing the crime. Sandy Berger gets caught stuffing classified information down his pants and the media hardly mentions it in passing. If Condi Rice had done that, it would have been front page news until she was arrested and imprisoned. Hillary violates national security with her email server and passes on classified information, and she is still the leading Democrat for president. Never mind the fact that she let four people, including our ambassador, die on her watch. What difference does it make, huh Dave? And yet, a congressionally and internationally sanctioned war against Iraq is made out to be nothing but acts of aggression and war crimes. Yeah, no double standards at all with our “unbiased” media.

“Whenever a con defines or describes ‘liberal’ he is biased. And they demonize 24/7. Blame and scapegoating is all we ever hear or read from the radical far Right.”
Please don’t tell me that you don’t think this is absolutely true from the left as well. Surely you aren’t that blind, Dave. You yourself are guilty of the very thing you accuse the right and me of, sir.

 
At 6:29 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

“So why do you regurgitate only the far Right dogma? In fact, ‘Reality has a well-known liberal bias’, as Stephen Colbert explained in front of Bush at a White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Why do you regurgitate only far Left dogma? I suspect it is because you mistakenly believe it to be true. And if your best argument of support for your position is some “comedian”, well – that doesn’t strengthen your position AT ALL, my friend. I certainly don’t find Colbert to be an authoritative figure on anything.

“This is why the Right needs their own corporate media echo chambers like FOX(R) and talk/hate radio.”

Yeah, because we would like to hear the other side at least once in a while instead of the biased leftist slant all of the time. I swear, the left is like the arrogant high school quarterback who gets mad at the only cheerleader on the squad who refuses to sleep with him. As for “hate radio”, I wonder if you ever had the privilege to listen to Ed Schulz with his short-lived venom radio? I admit that Limbaugh and Hannity go overboard sometimes, but nothing compared to what is dished out from the left.

Don’t worry though. We have so dumbed down our electorate that they will continue to vote for leftist agendas. Of course our nation will soon falter and fail because of this, but I am sure the media and the left will find a way to blame this on conservatives. It is just what they do. (but according to you – the right is the demonizers.) News flash: both sides do this. The left is absolutely guilty of all charges on this issue. If you don’t see that, then you really do live in a world devoid of reality, my friend.

 
At 7:33 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

So you agree corporate media has a corporate bias... AND a liberal bias? Right. They cannot offend their advertisers or the powers that be that provide their access, but are still magically the "liberal media". Cause you say so. Cause Rush says so. Cause FOX says so.

Time for more history lessons.

Contrary to how you frame it, did you know broadcast news was not supposed to generate profit? It was part of the deal for use of the public broadcast spectrum. That's ancient history for you younger folks.

Another item Right wing conservatives ignore is the fact corporate media pushed Bush/Cheney propaganda to the point most Americans believed Saddam was involved with 9-11 and al-Qaeda.

"Catapulting the propaganda' was the term Bush used. You probably don't recall that either.

It was your sweet Condi's fear-mongering of mushroom clouds that corporate media parroted, old buddy.

What evidence can you show us that compares? Ranting and blaming will not suffice.

the media and the left will find a way to blame this on conservatives.

Why can't you show us an example of corporate media blaming conservatives like FOX (R) and hate radio blame and scapegoate liberals? Should be easy.

If you could refute my points instead of just pouring on more blame and accusations, we could get somewhere.

Here is my primary point.

The Right represents entrenched economic power.

Democracy and representation for the public are the antithesis of their ideology. Thus liberals must be demonized, for they are the voices supporting democracy and the public good.


Instead of refuting this, your "liberals hate and envy the rich" line feeds right into my point.

How long must we wait to see your evidence of CNN, or NBC, or ABC telling us "conservatives hate America and envy the rich"?

Maybe the lack of evidence just makes you more angry at liberals. Gotta blame somebody, right?

Now FOX is blaming Obama for cops getting shot.

BONGINO: You know Heather I do and It gives me no joy in saying this but I would have proudly given my life for the president of the United States. As a Secret Service agent that was our job. It’s what we do. No one is looking for a pat on the back but the man's been a complete disgrace when it comes to dealing with police officers and it really gives me no joy in saying that. I know people tend to engage in hyperbolic statements here but it’s just the truth.

How many people are going to have to die?


http://www.newshounds.us/fox_news_is_already_blaming_obama_for_fox_lake_police_officer_shooting_090115#2T4AKrfhK0ZAsz75.99

 
At 8:09 PM, Anonymous Smokey Lagumski said...

"Here you go Smoky:

http://www.adn.com/article/20140903/alaska-has-highest-rate-welfare-recipients-us-census-says

As a rule Conservatives are poorly informed because of highly partisan information sources that only cover a small portion of topics compared to Liberal ones. In politics you are what you read. "

LOL James on such a lame and irrational response. The Brown family is not on welfare and don't need the government and their "free stuff".

You must be that delusional Jefferson's Guardian who still believes that 9/11 was an inside job.

The Browns say they live a lifestyle with similarities to American families of 200 years ago. This was when nanny state socialism did not exist and the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution did not mean free housing, free food, free birth control, free abortions, free health care, free Obama phones, etc.

Its about time for another rant from Saul Alinsky's favorite radical son on how the "general welfare" cause means free stuff for everybody!

 
At 8:29 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

While we laugh at Smokey Chuck's latest float in his parade of ignorance, we have more blame to cast.

Scott "Koch Puppet" Walker is joining the "blame Obama and the blacks" game.

In the last six years under President Obama, we’ve seen a rise in anti-police rhetoric. Instead of hope and change, we’ve seen racial tensions worsen and a tendency to use law enforcement as a scapegoat.

Yeah it's not the cops' fault for shooting blacks in the back, or while sitting in cars. It's Obama's fault, obviously.

We removed racism from "post racial America", until Obama and the blacks brought it back, amirite?

 
At 12:01 AM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Here you go Smoky:


http://patriotsquestion911.com



Thousands of well known highly accomplished people from every walk of life were brave enough to put their picture and resumes on the site above shortly after 9/11. I stumbled across it looking for pictures of the Pentagon and the debris field in Penn.

I never did see any pictures of either site which was very odd indeed considering how important those events were.

If you spent an half hour looking through PQ9/11 you would not be so sure of your opinions anymore, but I know that would never happen because you are afraid of the truth.

 
At 11:03 AM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

DD is quick to highlight the extremely rare unwarranted shooting by a rogue policeman, yet when questioned on who kills more black men in our country BY FAR, answers it is "males", quickly avoiding race when it comes to taking responsibility rather than being the victim.

To me that is indicative of an agenda and not a search for truth. Or maybe he was just being cute. Not sure. Don't really care. I know the answer and implications as do we all.

This whole discussion (both original topic and the derivative topic) is indicative of one of the biggest cultural diseases we suffer. That is taking the media's cues (like the blog author) on what topics are important rather than thinking through what topics are truly important for themselves. That is the true thrust of the "media" (the "press"). The political slant is not the issue (that is entertainment content) - rather the unilateral agreement to subliminally direct to our society what we should be thinking about - and by exclusion, directing us away from what we truly should be thinking about. That is the true goal of the propagandists. And it works like a charm...

 
At 11:37 AM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Harley, you are absolutely correct, sir. Well said!

 
At 12:11 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,

the extremely rare unwarranted shooting by a rogue policeman of white men, that is.

If you think police brutality is rare, if you think militarized police are not terrorizing black populations, if you think the occupation mentality by law enforcement isn't a growing problem, you are indeed naive and sheltered.

I have four words to help you understand. The war on drugs. Just as many, or more, whites use drugs. More blacks are in prison for it.

Have you considered this? If the socio-economic-historical positions were reversed, would whites still be the morally superior, or less violent, race you seem to want to indicate?

Until you have walked in a black man's shoes, or get pulled over for "driving while black", your judgments and pronouncements, as well as those of every other white man in their white world, are taken accordingly.

In case you missed it, Chuckie would repeat ad nauseam who kills most blacks, as the Klan would take delight in pushing. So I responded first with "Who kills most whites?" That would be white men.

Males are the primary killers of our species.

Since 9-11 Right wing "Christian" males have been more likely to be terrorist killers than liberals, let alone Muslim terrorists. How does that set with you?

And why not? Their hate is systematically fed 24/7. Hate has consequences. Demonization kills. It killed Jews last century and it kills liberals today. Historically it kills every group that is scapegoated and held as objects of blame and derision.

Just playing your stat game to its conclusion.

And to repeat what they are "directing us away from what we truly should be thinking about".

Here is my primary point.

The Right represents entrenched economic power. I'd estimate 70% of Democratic and 90% of Republican national officeholders are held hostage or in servitude of Wall Street. Senator Dick Durban spoke candidly when he said, "They own the place".

Democracy and representation for the public are the antithesis of the ideology of the far Right and their economic overlords. Thus liberals must be demonized, for they are the voices supporting democracy and the public good.

My secondary point: Media is corporate owned and managed, and has a corporate bias in favor of the status quo.

It is NOT the fabricated unilaterally defined "liberal media" of the Right's dogma.

In addition to corporate bias, I have shown there are examples too numerous to list, of media fawning and repetition of the Bush war propaganda. What kind of mentality sees that as liberal?

The game is rigged. Money buys free speech and representation. Liberals know it and call it corruption. Others do not. Call them "patriots" and "good conservatives" or whatever you like. A rare few conservatives have a suspicion, but something keeps them from saying, "Hey, liberals have a good point here!"

Instead we get:

"Liberals hate and envy the rich." Liberals reject "American exceptionalism." "Liberals this, liberals that".

So far TP has yet to support his false equivalence that conservatives are demonized in media like liberals.

You make a good point about media distraction. I agree. They are the propaganda arm of the military corporate state. And the fact they have a cult that babbles about them being "liberal" is a sure sign of their effectiveness.









 
At 12:18 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

A couple pithy quotes that succinctly support my rambling case:


The American corporate media does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government." – Paul Craig Roberts

"Politics is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex." -Frank Zappa

 
At 2:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most recent Georgia primary poll released today:

Dem: Clinton 51, Sanders 24, Biden 15, Chafee 5, Webb and O’Malley 0

GOPers: Trump 34, Carson 25, Jeb 11, Everyone else 6 or less

 
At 2:35 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

“Marriage equality is the law of the land,” Clinton tweeted. “Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law — end of story.”
---- said with a straight face...

You can't make this stuff up.


Ok, back to DD...

Agreed on media (I think) pretty much. They are entertainment at best. The political content is superficial and unimportant. It's really not a very interesting topic nor one we'll do much about. The best solution is turn off the over-makeup'd suits and skirts and quit listening to the babble. There are sound sources of information and even sound sources for editorial commentary that is well-founded and cerebral. But, it doesn't come from a TV screen for the most part. And, unfortunately is dwarfed by the noise that will continue to drive our society. So, we are screwed basically, is my conclusion.

I follow a lot of what PCR says - have read a couple of his books - mostly for the economic content. But, I agree on his characterization of how our legal system has been bastardized. I don't think the police state concerns are as much racially focused as you seem to think. I think it is a potential problem and one for which broad 2nd amendment rights are a must. I also don't equate legacy inequities that exist along racial lines with contemporary extreme "racism" as a primary cause. And, I also hold the African-American race (though, oddly enough, that is technically a national distinction and not racial) responsible to some degree to not blame the current discrepancy in violent crime (mostly intra-racial) on factors external or out of their control. In other words, police brutality PALES in comparison to the violence they commit to members of their own race. So, ironically, the very thing they blame (at least what gets the press) is the only hope they have as imperfect as it is. Take police presence out of the "streets" and let's see what happens...

 
At 3:10 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...


So, ironically, the very thing they blame (at least what gets the press) is the only hope they have as imperfect as it is. Take police presence out of the "streets" and let's see what happens...

You are over-generalizing the issue and setting up the straw man argument that no police presence is demanded.

Police brutality is not their only hope. Thugs who shouldn’t be in a position to abuse their authority are not their only hope. Unprofessional behavior that escalates rather than diffuses volatile situations is not their only hope. Corrupt racist police departments are not their only hope.

These are the “very thing they blame”, not police presence, if anyone is paying attention. In fact, lack of police presence is often the problem for urban dwellers.

Detroit had 2,700 officers in 2005. That number is down to 1,590 in 2015.

Detroit's biggest crime problem: Lack of police, poll finds
60% say they are willing to pay more taxes to beef up the city's police and fire patrols


From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121009/METRO01/210090368#ixzz3knXqqwpv

 
At 4:21 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

Obviously, it was not police brutality (but rather presence) that I was claiming to be needed.

Now regarding the police brutality, you said, "These are the “very thing they blame”, not police presence, if anyone is paying attention."

Precisely! Thank you. And that (police brutality) is BY FAR NOT their greatest problem... It is a convenient scapegoat to avoid responsibility for social deterioration in a large segment of their culture in America (primarily among their younger generation). I live very close to the "inner city" - "the hood". I am not a suburban dweller. On many occasions, I've heard gunshots late at night. I have witnessed attempted robbery. I have witnessed other activity that I won't mention. And all by a particular demographic - 100%. I know of what I speak... That's why I'm very careful to pinpoint where the problem is - it is largely the 35 and under generation. That is simple fact. Statistics and experience bear it out. I have no reason to lie. And, I won't agree with a false narrative based on an inexplicable and unfounded progressive fetish.

You are going in circles and making yourself dizzy on this one, but I appreciate your tenacity...

 
At 6:43 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,

I’m not sure I know what you mean by a “false narrative based on an inexplicable and unfounded progressive fetish”, or how it pertains here.

Police brutality towards blacks is seen as not only the racism from the individual thug in uniform, but as something institutionally condoned as “not their greatest problem” so to speak. But it is a problem. People die for no good reason. Not the greatest problem at all for you, is it? Not personally for me either.

I could also say terrorism is not the greatest problem for me personally. I’m lucky enough to not know any victims. I see the expanding surveillance/police state eventually doing far more harm to us as a nation. But I would never say it’s “not the greatest problem” to the victims or to those otherwise affected.

Maybe it’s just an inexplicable and unfounded progressive fetish on my part to not blame the victims, and dismiss their legitimate grievances as a convenient scapegoat to avoid responsibility for social deterioration. One would be going in circles and making oneself dizzy in order to slap down their pleas for justice to deny, or distract from, very bad policing.

I appreciate your tenacity as well.

 
At 6:48 PM, Anonymous Vanessa said...

"Here you go Smoky:

http://patriotsquestion911.com"

Looks like James Hansen is that 9/11 nutjob Jefferson's Guardian.

There really is nothing we can do to help this man whose brain is not wired correctly.

James (Jefferson) there is nothing that can cure your mental sickness. Sorry to tell the truth no matter how politically incorrect it may be. May your Obamacare plan have a good doctor to cure your mental illness.

 
At 7:42 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Smokey Vanessa has all the answers, of course. "Shut up and believe Dick Cheney".

The world, and the US, is an alien place for Smokey Vanessa.

A poll taken by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park, polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008. They found that majorities in only 9 of the 17 countries believe al-Qaeda carried out the attacks.

46 percent of those surveyed said al-Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks.[1]

A Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006

"Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure

 
At 10:20 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Dave, 58 percent of the population has never researched 9/11 for even an hour, that is why they are clueless about the subject. The probability of Bush/Chaney being complicit in the 9/11 attack is approximately 100%.

 
At 12:34 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

James,
This is the country with a majority who bought into the "Saddam is in cahoots with al-Qaeda" propaganda by the time of Bush's invasion. We know Bush immediately demanded Richard Clarke link Saddam to 9-11.

The "Shut up and believe Dick Cheney" crowd are incapable of opening their minds or questioning their authoritarian leader.

Americans are in denial, or ignorance, of so much.

Cui bono?



 
At 9:18 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

James Hansen: "The probability of Bush/Chaney being complicit in the 9/11 attack is approximately 100%."

James, I would suspect you're right, but we'll probably never really know because they averted an independent investigation. Obviously, because it was a criminal act, the investigation should have been carried out by New York State. All the available evidence points to a conclusion that it wasn't carried out by nineteen Arabs -- although their role as scapegoats certainly was crucial to its success. They had a part in it, but it was diversionary at best. The real perpetrators, unfortunately, have ridden into the sunset -- thanks to a gullible and unquestioning citizenry.

And you're right -- if everybody would just take the time to explore the issue in depth, they'd find literally hundreds of inconsistencies and inaccuracies with the "official narrative". The smoking gun is Building 7 -- just studying this would make anybody who's thirsty for the truth to question the whole masquerade.

We live with the consequences of this elaborate sham each day.

 
At 10:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

During an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius thoroughly debunked arguments that Hillary Clinton should be charged with a crime as a result of her use of a private email system while serving as secretary of state. When MSNBC re-aired the first hour of its program later in the morning, the bulk of Ignatius' debunking had been edited out.


Our liberal media strikes again!

 
At 11:09 AM, Anonymous Vanessa said...

"46 percent of those surveyed said al-Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks.[1]"

The 15 percent who said the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks are surely "leaning forward" progressives. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

Thanks Dave Dubya for admitting you are part of that nutjob Jefferson's 9/11 cult.

 
At 11:41 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

The only thing admitted here is Smokey Vanessa's unflinching trust of Big Government and derision of reasonable questions of it.

Isn't that precious?


 
At 2:53 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Radical Right Wing "Christian" terrorism… again.

PULLMAN, Wash. (AP) — A pre-dawn blaze that heavily damaged a Planned Parenthood clinic was arson, fire investigators in Washington state determined Friday.

The fire follows a recent wave of protests at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. On Aug. 22, some 500 protesters gathered outside the Pullman clinic, waving signs and calling for Congress to defund the organization.

In 1996, a Planned Parenthood clinic in Spokane Valley was bombed. Four men were convicted in the blast. They were members of a white supremacist, anti-abortion group.

 
At 7:48 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

I wonder what Conservatives would say if 9/11 happened under Obama? Would they still say you are a nut job to think Obama had any responsibility or a degree of negligence?

 
At 8:09 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

James,
There would be no doubt Obama would get far more blame than Bush/Cheney, Israel and al-Qaeda combined. Imagine "Benghazi!(TM)" a thousandfold.

Their hate would boil over into unending frenzy as they launch investigation after investigation.

But as we all know, IOKIYAR.

 
At 10:18 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "The only thing admitted here is Smokey Vanessa's unflinching trust of Big Government and derision of reasonable questions of it."

Ironic, isn't it?

 
At 8:31 AM, Anonymous Jefferson's Accordian said...

"The only thing admitted here is Smokey Vanessa's unflinching trust of Big Government and derision of reasonable questions of it.

Isn't that precious?"


How about some other precious and reasonable question of it like:

What has the Department of Energy done for America?

What has the Department of Education done for America?

How come the media spent little coverage of the recent Environmental Protection Agency disaster where an estimated 1 million gallons of waste water spilled out of an abandoned mine area into the Animus River in Colorado?

After 50 years fighting the most expensive war, the "War On Poverty", how come we have so many liberal disaster zones where the liberal plantation masters throw just enough crumbs in exchange for the vote of people in poverty like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, Camden, LA and other inner cities?

Why did Bill Clinton and all the Democrats pass with unanimous consent "The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" right before George Bush took office claiming there were Weapons of Mass Destruction when there weren't any?

 
At 10:53 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Poor Smokey Vanessa's "Accordian"! Oops, his misspelling must certainly be the fault of liberals and the Department of Education, amirite? When caught in ignorance and hypocrisy again, it's time to spew some random resentments.

I'm quite sure Dick Cheney has all the answers he could ever need. He was after all, that Last Honest Man in government.

 
At 7:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Question:

What is the total number of months during the Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush I administrations, plus the first term of Clinton, when the unemployment rate was lower than today?

Answer:

One.



 
At 8:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another disingenuous question from SoreLoser, the original RWNJ.

Each and every RWNJ who mentions the '98 Iraq Liberation Act leaves this part out:

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided
in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
Approved October 31, 1998


That's a pretty relevant section, no? Why do you suppose SoreLoser/Vanessa/Sharptoon/Witherspoon(s) would leave that out?

 
At 12:47 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Ignorance is strength.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/caucus/2015/08/31/iowa-poll-many-republicans-still-believe-barack-obama-not-born-us/71455818/

"Iowa Poll: Many Republicans still believe Barack Obama was not born in U.S."


Low information Iowa Republican voters are still pandered to despite their ignorance.

Belief trumps fact. Rule number one for the far Right.

Ignorance can be remedied by education. Willful ignorance, the Republican Cult type, is held firmly behind a shield of hate and contempt for sane and informed Americans.

American exceptionalism, amirite?

 
At 1:03 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

"Ignorance can be remedied by education."

Indeed it can be. Sadly what we get instead is progressive indoctrination. Critical thinking is discouraged if it disagrees with the leftist agenda in schools. Factual history is not taught. Economics is disregarded. Science is relegated to "global warming" theories only. Civics classes are all but unheard of.

The only "rights" being taught by our "educators" is discrimination is illegal, abortion must be unfettered, and gay marriage is constitutional protected. All other rights in the constitution are subject to change based on the progressive agenda and redefinition of words. Those are our new "inalienable rights". As for our responsibilities... well those evidently don't exist.

I never thought I would say it, but I am no longer proud to be an American if this is what America truly is.

 
At 1:39 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Targeting and redefining public education as "progressive indoctrination" is the same far Right tactic as redefining corporate owned, corporate managed, and corporate biased media as "liberal media".

Redefining the corporate and Wall Street funded Democratic Party as "Marxist" is another classic example. Same with Obama the "Marxist", as he pushes corporate written trade agreements to be law of the land and opens the Arctic Ocean to oil drilling.

Texas Right wingers are dictating the contents of the nation's school textbooks. More "progressive indoctrination"? Yeah, why not? If we believe it, then it must be true.

"Redefinition of words" has been the far Right's MO for decades. Thank you for the projection.

"Trickle down". Liberals "hate and envy" the rich. Death taxes. Death panels. Job creators. Government takeover of health care. Obama the Kenyan Marxist... ad nauseam.

Shall I continue? I can offer more if this doesn't make the point.

I never thought I would say it, but I am no longer proud to be an American if this is what America truly is.

Aw, it's not so bad. No need to be glum. Just think of it as our "Birther Right", and it will feel better. And how can everything NOT be better for all Americans when we let billionaires buy the House, Senate, and White House? The "divine right of wealth" shall surely save and protect us all from the tyranny of democratic representation.

The Right has every right to all its crazy beliefs. They are free to make up their own reality. Their 24/7 propaganda network of FOX and talk radio is doing their job. This is the far Right's version of "education".

"Birthers welcome". How bad can that be?

 
At 4:15 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

“Targeting and redefining public education as ‘progressive indoctrination’ is the same far Right tactic as redefining corporate owned, corporate managed, and corporate biased media as ‘liberal media’.”

Really? The NEA and other very leftist teachers’ unions have been increasingly responsible for most of the our nation’s education. They tend to support left wing ideologies which are reflected in the classroom curriculum. The result is that we have college students that don’t know who Alexander Hamilton or James Madison are, and yet they can tell you about global warming and other such similar alchemy-like subjects. I love the man-on-the-street interviews of these “educated” people that don’t know who won the civil war or what the name of our Vice President is, but they can tell you who the Kardashians and Snooki are. We cannot fire incompetent teachers with tenure and we cannot reward good teachers with merit increases. All we can do is pass on the leftist agenda in our school by teaching first graders the book “Heather has Two Mommies”. Yeah, tell me this is NOT indoctrination.

As for the Democrats and Obama, they definitely have Marxist leanings, but ultimately they are for whatever strengthens their own grips on power. That is why Obama can rally for his trade agreement, because it strengthens HIS power. And yes, the GOP is absolutely guilty of this corruption too.

“ ‘Redefinition of words’ has been the far Right's MO for decades. Thank you for the projection. ‘Trickle down’. ‘Liberals ‘hate and envy’ the rich. Death taxes. Death panels. Job creators. Government takeover of health care. Obama the Kenyan Marxist... ad nauseam.”

First, “trickle down” was a pejorative term coined by progressives trying to demonize the wildly successful Reagan tax cuts that did lift all boats out of the depths of the Carter economy. Next, how about the class warfare crap spewed by the left of the rich not paying their fair share when the top 10% of federal tax earners pay 45% of the tax burden and the bottom 50% of tax earners pay like 2% of the burden. As for death taxes, well any money from an estate has already been taxed, so taxing it again upon one’s death sounds like an appropriate term to me. As for death panels, well I guess that is a little tougher than the euphemism of “end of life panels” used in Obamacare. The result is the damned same though. And by the way, the government did take over health care. I didn’t get to keep my doctor. I didn’t get to keep my old insurance plan. And I didn’t save $2500 a year in costs. In fact, I am paying about that much MORE… all because our %$^&ing government DID indeed take over our health care system. What the hell else do you call it? As for Obama, I don’t know if he is a Kenyan Marxist or not, but he is definitely evil and a piece of human debris that is intentionally destroying what is left of our country.

Shall I make a list of everything that the left has redefined? How about marriage, discrimination, entitlements, paying their fair share, war of aggression, and global warming which is now climate change. And those are just for starters.

The Left has every right to all its crazy beliefs. They are free to make up their own reality. Their 24/7 propaganda networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and all of the print media are doing their job. This is the far Left's version of "education".

“9/11 was an inside job.” How bad can that be?

 
At 6:57 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

To the far Right, public education, journalism, unions, public employees, the poor, hippies, blacks, and even George W. Bush, the man who wanted to privatize Social Security for crony profit all represent “liberal evil”.

This is why they need their own propaganda network to tell their dupes who to blame, what to fear, and who to follow.

TP wants us to falsely believe “Heather has Two Mommies” was a classroom textbook instead of a target for banning by the Right. Hmm. Book banning…who does that kind of thing, anyway?

Sorry, but conservative Texans dictate, and censor, our public school textbooks. Why is this influence ignored? It’s easier to make crap up and blame liberals.

And yes, the GOP is absolutely guilty of this corruption too.

Of course they are. Thank you. They are the alpha corporatist party. Nothing liberal at all about corruption by divine right of wealth. So let’s not blame the rich, and give them tax breaks, so they don’t suffer all that terrible “burden” of having 9 instead of 10 vacation homes. Oh, the pain.

I love the man-on-the-street interviews of these “educated” people that don’t know who won the civil war or what the name of our Vice President is, but they can tell you who the Kardashians and Snooki are.

Reminds me of Sarah Palin talking about the Queen of England as the political and diplomatic leader of Britain. She had to be educated about why there are two Koreas and who were our adversaries in WWI. Ignorance on parade. But IOKIYAR.

First, “trickle down” was a pejorative term coined by progressives trying to demonize the wildly successful Reagan tax cuts that did lift all boats out of the depths of the Carter economy.

But isn’t “lift all boats” saying the same thing as “trickle down”? Cutting taxes for the rich is good for everyone. Except not in the real world.

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down, so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." – David Stockman 1981

If you’re conservative you may ignore this statement and blame liberals instead. That’s how it works.

The transfer of wealth used to be taxed. Now spoiled brats can scoop up $5 million tax free, for contributing nothing. Sure the money may have been “already taxed” (at a lower rate than what I pay) by the previous rich guy, but not the beneficiary. The dead person is not paying a cent. He’s dead. Why is this so complicated?

End of life counseling was redefined as a scary death panel that condemns a person to death. The counseling has been removed from health care plans because of the fear mongering about “killing grandma”.

Health care plans change regardless of Obamacare. Health care has gone up way before Obamacare. Why? For some reason conservatives want to pour billions of dollars into middlemen CEO pockets for doing nothing whatsoever for health care. How is that “government takeover”? It isn’t.

Even under totally socialized health care the government hasn’t “taken over health care”. Hospitals and health care professionals administer health care, not the government. Government pays for it. Thus the Right needs to redefine it as a “takeover”. Sounds scarier.

As for Obama, I don’t know if he is a Kenyan Marxist or not.

Either he is or he isn’t. But apparently being on the Right means not disputing the false belief. Same reason some people still think Saddam was in cahoots with al-Qaeda and had active nuclear and biological weapons programs. The lies that led to a war of aggression are still held as fact by true believers.

Admitting error must be a liberal flaw.

 
At 6:57 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

How about marriage, discrimination, entitlements, paying their fair share, war of aggression, and global warming which is now climate change.

The Supreme Court, not liberals, has allowed an expanded definition to include same sex marriage. My marriage hasn’t been redefined. Nobody’s has. As for the rest of list, no examples of redefining were given. If the rich paid their fair share under Nixon, that’s what the left wants. Everything else means what they have always meant.

ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and all of the print media are doing their job. Yes. Just as corporate media dutifully parroted Bush/Cheney lies and propaganda. Phil Donahue was fired for daring to question the program, wasn’t he?

Some “Liberal media”. I still can’t understand how that one qualifies. Better ignore that fact too, I guess.

Nothing has changed. Facts don’t matter. Belief and blame are the rules of the game.

“9/11 was an inside job.” How bad can that be?

Cui bono? It was terrible no matter who did it.

I’m surprised liberals don’t get the blame. They do for everything else.

Wait a minute. Wacko TV preachers did blame liberals didn’t they?

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools…I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government.

There you go. Liberals are to blame for everything. Just as we’re told by our true believers on the far Right.

Looks like we need us a good “final solution” for those evil treacherous Jews…er.. I mean liberals.

 
At 7:35 PM, Anonymous Jame Hanson said...

"Question:

What is the total number of months during the Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush I administrations, plus the first term of Clinton, when the unemployment rate was lower than today?

Answer:

One."

The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent. Jul 16, 2015

lol shit fer brains with the above question. 38 years ago Jimmy Carter was President. Ain't it a coincindence we have a black Jimmy Carter in the White House?

Why work when you can say to the nice social worker at the Social Security Disability office that your back hurts and you want free stuff?

Donald Trump is right. We have very stupid people running this country right now. Thank God the marxist shitstain in the White House will be gone soon and Donald Trump will take over.

 
At 12:45 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuckie's a Trumper!

Yeah, a humble man of the people.

Meanwhile in the "not their greatest problem" and the "false narrative based on an inexplicable and unfounded progressive fetish" department:

James Blake, former tennis star, slammed to ground and handcuffed outside midtown hotel by white NYPD cops

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/ex-tennis-star-james-blake-mistakenly-tackled-white-cops-article-1.2353983?cid=bitly&utm_content=bufferc85f4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDNSports+Twitter


Retired black tennis star James Blake, in an NYPD double-fault, was slammed to a Manhattan sidewalk and handcuffed by a white cop in a brutal case of mistaken identity.

The 35-year-old Blake, once ranked No. 4 in the world, suffered a cut to his left elbow and bruises to his left leg as five plainclothes cops eventually held him for 15 minutes Wednesday outside the Grand Hyatt Hotel.

“It was definitely scary and definitely crazy,” Blake told the Daily News. “In my mind there’s probably a race factor involved, but no matter what there’s no reason for anybody to do that to anybody.”

Blake, on his way to make a corporate appearance for Time Warner Cable at the U.S. Open, said none of white cops identified themselves, including the officer who charged straight at him and bounced him off the E. 42nd St. concrete around noon.

“Don’t say a word,” snapped the officer, who Blake said was not wearing a badge.

Blake — whose right eye appeared red hours later at the Midtown hotel — was only turned loose when a former cop recognized the man in cuffs and alerted the arresting officers, a police source said.

“That is James Blake, the tennis player,” the NYPD retiree told them.

The first cop involved never apologized to Blake for the physical thumping or the subsequent cuffing, the ex-player recounted


"Standing while black" is enough to get thrown to the cement without even an apology.

"Not their greatest problem", so never mind.

 
At 11:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep up with the race hustle Davy, it's all you got.

 
At 8:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We should make murder illegal. Better yet, let's make stupidity illegal.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home