Show off your holiday lights and you could win an iPad! Enter your photo by December 13. Winner will be selected by popular vote.
A great man is made up of qualities that meet or make great occasions.
What’s on your mind?
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
Here’s a copy of the note I sent to both of our Senators this morning:
I’m writing you this morning to ask that you and your fellow democrats honestly discuss and debate the CR sent by the House of Representatives. While I’m sure you disagree politically on defunding the Affordable Care Act, I think you will agree keeping the US Government running is far more important than one piece of unimplemented legislation. I’m sure you and I would disagree on the government’s role in healthcare so I will spare you the rant.
I further find it hard to believe that Congress has not been able to agree on a budget that lives within its means for four years.”
I wonder sometimes it they are only seen by staff members who just send a form letter on the Senators stance for the issue you selected??
Continuing its war on coal, the EPA will unveil new regulations soon that will dramatically limit emissions from US power plants that will effectively shut down coal fired energy plants. This will result in thousands of jobs lost and increase the cost of energy.
Democrats running for office in key states such as West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana will be put on the defensive.
If every coal fired energy plant in the US were shut down, the effect on CO2 emissions would be virtually negligible.
Another problem for the Dems seeking office in 2014 is Obama’s blocking TransCanada’s application to construct the Keystone XL pipeline for the pasted 5 years.
South Dakota Republican Governor Mike Rounds, who is running for the Senate in that important battleground state, will make Keystone a campaign issue.
Every Dem running for the House or Senate in 2014, and particularly incumbents like Landrieu, Mark Begich, Mark Pryor and Kay Hagan, will be forced to account for Obama’s failed record on jobs and war on domestic energy.
In Virginia, Terry McAuiliffe will have a tough time distancing himself from the Obama administration and the war on coal.
Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell has a nice ring to it as does Governor Cuccinelli!
20 dead in a mall shooting in Kenya.
Looks like they need to get rid of the gunshow loophole and make background checks mandatory for private sales!
Bill, I doubt your Senator will respond beyond the “thanks for your input” form letter, but I think they will appreciate the great irony of a right winger blaming Democrats for not being the ones to “honestly discuss and debate the CR sent by the House of Representatives”. Do you think it is ironic that you support holding the full faith and credit of the nation hostage to end Obamacare yet blame them for doing the same to uphold the law that has withstood the Supreme Court challenge?
I further find it hard to believe that you think it has only been four years that “Congress has not been able to agree on a budget that lives within its means“. Are you actually blaming Obama for the entire US debt now?
Bill, I appreciate the respectful letter you wrote to your senators. I too have written to my congressmen and others only to receive polite indifference.
Still, it can’t be helped. It is the nature of the beast. We don’t have a Democracy as the tea party people enjoy pointing out. We have a Republic.
I posted this back at the HERE WE GO AGAIN thread but thought it was worth posting here too if the editorial board will allow it.
Here’s a reminder from a couple of liberals of the importance of keeping guns.
Warning: the language at the link is a little bit NSFW.
Karl Marx: “…Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary….”
Eugene Debs: “…Recollect that in arming yourselves, as you are bound to do unless you are willing to be forced into abject slavery, you are safely within the spirit and letter of the law….”
Malcolm X: “…”The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guaranteed under the Constitution. …”
Huey Newton: “…An unarmed people are slaves or are subject to slavery at any given moment….”
I love this picture of Nelson Mandela. I apologize as some of the wording at the link is NSFW.
Nelson Mandela, Chris Hani and Peter Mokaba at a South African Communist Party rally in 1990.
One last story I’m sure the right wingers will love!
….“I would like to announce that we are preparing a lawsuit against Barack Obama to condemn him for crimes against humanity,” said President Morales at a press conference in the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz. He branded the US president as a “criminal” who violates international law. ….
Little did we know Duane Howard was a trend setter!!
I’m sure well see more of stuff like this in coming years as citizens grow into the role of standing up to the bullying of the government. Great place to begin as well. The lib based educational system.
Bubba, first off, that was a State function, not a Federal one so you can’t legitimately blame Obama for this.
Second, here’s some other protesters in the “lib based educational system” following Duane Howard’s trend.
I just wonder how this fits in with your conservative narrative? Should we blame Obama for this?
CUNY students have gone from screaming things at David Petraeus as he walks down the street to organizing protests against his low-paid teaching position at their school. Earlier this week, six demonstrators who showed up at a Manhattan fundraiser attended by Petraeus were arrested for “disorderly conduct, riot, resisting arrest and obstruction of governmental administration,” The Guardian reports. A YouTube video of how that went down does not make the NYPD look very good: In the clip, you can see a police officer repeatedly punching a protester in the back and side even though he appears to already be subdued on the ground……
Oh my, watch as the focus groups materialize across the land.
#4..No Saunders…Obama could never have anything to do with the FACT that Harry Reid didn` pass a budget in over 4.5 years….something the Senate is required by law to do each and EVERY April. You can bet that if it`s lawless, its perpetrated by a Democrat.
I realize this hasn’t come up lately but came across a year old article on the correlation between video games and murder rates. Both of these links are well worth reading.
I will try again and see if bolding the point helps awood…
I find it hard to believe that you think it has only been four years that “Congress has not been able to agree on a budget that lives within its means“. Pretending there was no unsustainable debt even BEFORE the economic near collapse is just plain laughable. Pretending that none of that debt belonged to Reagan or Bush is just plain pitiful.
#14 – “Pretending that none of that debt belonged to Reagan or Bush is just plain pitiful.”
No one is saying there was no previous debt.
Reid and the Senate have failed in their lawful duty to produce a budget.
That, my dear, is a fact.
OK, last attempt: I am not disputing that there were no actual budgets negotiated by Congress (as is their job). “When statements attempted to pin the blame squarely on just one political party for the inaction, rulings of Half True were given. But in a case where blame was not heaped on just one party, as is the case with Corker’s statement, PolitiFact has gone with True or Mostly True, depending on the wording of the claim.”
HOWEVER, his original comment included the distortion that only the last 4 years “Congress has not been able to agree on a budget that lives within its means“ and THAT last part is patently untrue. The budgets did not live within our means for a very, very long time. Long before Obama.
6 – Scott. just what point are you trying to make with these quotes? Are you suddenly a 2nd Amendment supporter? If so, welcome to the club; if not, what gives?
@17 89Hoo, I’m a big believer in the “Truth” in the sense that examining a subject and following it’s implications and learning as much as you can about something is always beneficial and never harmful. What you do with that information can be helpful or hurtful.
That’s the reason I’m both an atheists and communist. I’ve looked at religion/evolution/logic/probabilities/history, etc. and concluded there is nothing to the supernatural and hence, no gods. I’ve looked at capitalism and determined is an exploitative system and have decided to look for a more humane system and come across employee owned and controlled businesses or co-ops/communist enterprises.
By providing those quotes I’m trying to be honest with myself that not all leftists are “anti-gun”. It reminds me this is a subtle issue with more depth than a black and white presentation would imply.
So to ask am I a 2nd Amendment supporter is kind of the wrong question because it demands a simplified yes/no answer. I can’t answer yes/no because that would imply in your mind I either agree completely or completely disagree with whatever it is you have in mind when you say ‘supporter’.
So, at least in our society, I think we’d be better off with more control over gun ownership. We could probably do with getting rid of the handguns entirely. I think guns should be allowed in certain circumstances and for certain people and well regulated.
One of the very important things to note about the differences I think we have is the quotes I provided were for the underclasses to arm themselves as a means of self defense against those in power that had demonstrated their willingness to use power as a means of suppression and control.
It seems many of the gun rights advocates have never really faced suppression or violence from any controlling power yet still rail against regulation, thereby giving me the impression they’re a little nuts.
18 – yes, thank you, Scott.
Note that all of the people you quoted – Marx, Debs, Malcolm X, Huey Newton – were revolting against a power structure they perceived as tyrannical, that they were not part of the power structure itself. Marx against the feudal aristocracy, Debs against a burgeoning bureaucratic-crony capitalist system that was a successor to the feudal aristocracy, Malcolm X and Newton against an ingrained relic of a past abomination, that was ALSO a descendent of the feudal aristocracy.
(I speak in generalities, and do not want to get sidetracked in a nuanced examination of the struggle of each man, but I think that’s a pretty accurate summary).
As I said, they were the revolutionaries and NOT part of that summary.
Recognizing that tyranny is in many ways in the eye of the beholder, their struggles and their analogies, then, are analogous to those of Washington, Jefferson, et al, who penned the 2nd Amendment. They too were revolting against an ingrained power structure – the English royalty – and abuses – those laid out in the Declaration of Independent. They were also the victims, were not part of the power structure.
And that is precisely why they saw the right to keep and bear arms as an inherent right. Having just exorcised their demons through a use of arms, against a government and nation they only reluctantly wanted to fight. Remember, they didn’t want war, they wanted to be Englishmen, and wanted to be afforded the same rights and freedoms as Englishmen everywhere. It was only when those rights and freedoms were eroded that they resorted to revolution. And having exhausted diplomatic and non-violent revolutionary avenues, they finally resorted to war.
Having recognized that a) all men and governments are corruptible (no matter how well intended and planned); b) that no man or government should be granted or allowed to assume absolute power (even though George III’s tyranny was pretty benign compared to those of a lot of other tyrants); and c) that the citizenry must have the capability of revolting, even to the extremity of armed revolt…they included just that capability with the 2nd Amendment.
It is not, never was, about hunting, or even personal self-defense (though those are also benefits), it’s about having the ability to detail a tyranny in the central government. That is also the point of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, but an armed populace is the ultimate guarantor of the other rights.
All of those quotes are saying precisely the same thing. And I agree with them.
#18 – “It seems many of the gun rights advocates have never really faced suppression or violence from any controlling power yet still rail against regulation, thereby giving me the impression they’re a little nuts.”
Tell that to the folks who’ve had to deal with (or been killed by, or been jailed by)the BATFE.
Geez I really should proofread more carefully. Previous post full of typos but I think I made my point. Apologies for the errors.
20 – more to the point…should we have to wait until we actually DO face such persecution or should we try to prevent it? Once it reaches that point, it’s too late to do anything about it.
#22 – Correct, Hoo.
And Scott, gun owners face suppression on a daily basis due to the constant calls for more worthless gun laws and threats of banning guns, requiring registration, etc.
When supposedly civilized intelligent people start taking the “armed populace will save us” meme seriously, we have jumped the shark.
24 – I was hoping for a more thoughtful response.
25 — When gun nuts offer silly arguments, they get what they give, Hoo.
26 – precisely what I expected from you, though.
Scott/’Hoo…..the difference is when the “progressive” left becomes the tyranical power structure (credit, ‘Hoo).
Yet, thank you Scott….you have indeed found this “Truth”.
27 – but Steven, let me ask you then: what is your reaction to the quotes Scott posted in 6? Silly arguments of gun nuts or warnings from revolutionaries? Or something else?
I’ll be stunned if you actually answer.
28 – tyranny can come from the right, too, Jim.
Clearly, armed “revolutionaries” never changed a society that did not want to change. A “power structure” almost by definition is going to be (or seem) “tyrannical” to someone. A “revolt” has to have a cause or be seeking change that the society supports or will support, or it fails. In the 60′s we called them “militants” today we call them “terrorists”, but whether we join them or fight them depends not on their armament but on their ideals.
I take note that the areas, much less the nation, chose not to “rise up” and join the “Black Panthers”, “Waco”, “Ruby Ridge”, or “Occupy”. Disbursed pockets of violence does not a revolution make.
The real difference in this nation, has come at the ballot box when we elect the people whose plan we want to follow, as the Founders intended. Armed insurrection, or revolution comes when that process fails. When the South believed it failed, they found out otherwise. Despite the right wing hysteria, it has not failed here.
True enough ‘Hoo. But the subject was contemporary gun “control”. And, by inference (at least) as such in this country.
I fully admit there is nothing new under the sun and all are flawed. But that is a rationalization you generally oppose.
30 – Sandi – “Armed insurrection, or revolution comes when that process fails.”
Yes, and the Founding Fathers knew we are humans, and knew that even in a constitutional republic, abuses are possible, almost inevitable, and an armed citizenry – even short of outright rebellion – is a check against that. It’s no coincidence that all tyrants throughout history have first sought to disarm the populace. That’s not to imply that anyone who attempts to disarm the populace is a tyrant, but that very act paves the way for the one who IS a tyrant.
31 – Jim – “I fully admit there is nothing new under the sun and all are flawed. But that is a rationalization you generally oppose.”
I don’t think the wording of the Second Amendment, nor the actual uses of militias in times of a “rebellion” bears out that point 89Hoo. The militia was used to suppress rebellion, even armed rebellion for good reason, and so too later was the national army. Even if believing that revolt could become necessary or should be possible, they made every effort for governance to never reach that point and if they thought it would or should, where is the provision for that in the Constitution?
The Founding Fathers intended the militia to be used in the place of a standing army, which was not envisioned as very powerful. Knowing that external threats are always there, the Founders tasked the states and militias – largely privately organized and regulated (drilled, exercised, etc.) with handling those external threats when they arose. This was really a recognition that the individual state governments were more important than the federal, that Richmond was more important than Washington. They were state militias, not federal militias.
Later legislation specifying HOW the states were to organize themselves (how many companies of foot, of horse, etc) were not so much to ensure that the states shared the burdens equally when called by Uncle, that a state didn’t bring a knife to a gun fight. It was not an attempt to usurp the authority in Richmond, and certainly not as a limitation to the right to keep and bear arms.
#23 “And Scott, gun owners face suppression on a daily basis”
Yeah, Michael, it’s real rough being limited to being able to buy only the number of guns and amount of ammunition that you can afford to pay for. Or being able to carry your concealed weapon or your open one to only about 95 percent of the places you want to go. You poor folks are so put upon.
#35 – We are indeed, gdad.
Thanks for acknowledging it!
I agree that the Founders meant for the militias to be our army when needed; Washington called them out for a domestic “revolt”. I disagree that the militia (or just armed people) was “seen as armed citizenry – even short of outright rebellion – is a check against” the duly elected government. I do not believe they would think that should be the plan and make no constitutional provisions for an armed coup (which it would have if they meant the Second Amendment to be such a “check” IMO). I don’t see how you can argue what they meant was not what they did but it is what they meant to do.
“Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.”
Name is required
A valid email is required (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Fri, 06 Dec 2013 21:05:39 +0000