Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

What is McCain's latest "senior moment", what does Obama need to do to win in November or whatever else is on your mind.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.

Thanks!

New Open Thread here
This one is now closed for comments.

4188 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1401 – 1600 of 4188 Newer› Newest»

apissedant said...: softspoken,
I like and agree with almost all you said. Only problem is something I mentioned a few posts ago, which is that those appeals and reviews have actually helped a lot of innocent people go free. Without the death penalty, many of them would still be in prison. I know that isn't the best argument, and it isn't meant to be. When it involves going to prison, people should be provided an adequate defense, and it is quite clear we are not living up to that.

Dave,
Although I wish that gun laws were all done on the federal level, I still have to disagree with the argument provided:
"The constitution says that us citizens in good standing with the law, have the right not only to keep our arms, but to bear them as well."

The actual wording:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Words in common:
"the right keep arms bear"

Words deleted:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... of the people to... and... shall not be infringed."

Words added:
"us citizens in good standing with the law, have... not only to... our... but to... them as well."

Those two sentences have almost nothing in common. In fact, the second amendment most definitely mentions the state, and the state's right to protect itself. It does not mention individuals at all. By a true reading, only the state has the right to decide what they do, and do not need. It mentions nothing about citizens, good legal standing, individuals, or anything else. It is a bill written specifically to GIVE the states' rights. To use it to take them away would be a bastardization of the idea.

I am completely open to amending it, but not in bastardizing the meaning of it.; June 25, 2008 10:50 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
There is an argument for the federal government restricting and/or controlling gun laws, but it has nothing to do with the second amendment. They have the ability reserved in the constitution to regulate interstate commerce. As technology has expanded and allowed easy and frequent traveling between states (both of property and of persons), this ability has been expanded to allow them to create laws on drugs, roads, tobacco, and almost anything else that is either transported across state lines, or effects commerce in multiple states.

Exact wording:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

This one also helps:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."; June 25, 2008 11:08 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - I understand but with the wording as written in the Constitution - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

By it explicitly stating that "the right of the people....." this can be interpreted several ways, it could be referring to "the people" (meaning the citizens) or it could be referring to "the people" as in the Militia, or it could be referring to "the people" as in the State. So the ambiguity can be interpreted many different ways. It is unfortunate that the framers couldn't foresee the blood and the crips 200+ years ago....LOL; June 25, 2008 11:14 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
I understand, but keep in mind we have 220 years of Congressional, Presidential, and Court rulings to decide exactly what they meant. There is a book about it... crap... what is the name... must stop typing while thinking... oh yeah... "A Well Regulated Militia." The author looks historically at the arguments used. He notes that the first time personal protection was about 70 years AFTER the constitution was passed, after all signers were long since dead. There is also the Federalist papers, writings of Benjamin Franklin and many others... oh... and you can't forget... COMMON SENSE!
Historically, it had been common for governments to attempt to take all weapons to keep the people from rebelling, and oppress the people. The people of Constitutional time actually trusted and liked their states, but they distrusted the almighty federal government. The bill of rights was proposed and written to protect the states from federal encroachment.

Why argue over what they meant when we can just READ what they said about it, and how it was used during their time. Republicans are able to use their arguments for self protection and all that crap because they are the party of ignoring history, and instead trying to guess what the founders wanted. It seems way easier and more correct to just read everything they wrote, instead of just the Constitution. The Federalist Papers have been quoted and referenced in over 80 supreme court rulings... it is quite obvious that those of our leaders that are truly educated give much weight to history and precedent. They don't just blindly read and guess.; June 25, 2008 11:22 PM
suzihussein22 said...: i v-I was referring to the gun ban ruling.

apissedant-Appeals aren't bad things. That's part of what the etc. was for without going into a dissertation.; June 25, 2008 11:23 PM
apissedant said...: Why is there a band playing on the daily show? The show is only 22 minutes long, I don't feel like wasting three listening to a band.; June 25, 2008 11:23 PM
apissedant said...: soft,
I know appeals are a good thing, the problem is that those not up for the death penalty typically don't get a fair shake at the appeals process. What's more, I would rather give them a good trial in the first place than depend on an appeal. I don't know if you like Grisham, but "The Innocent Man" is a true story about 4 guys who were wrongly convicted. Two were given the death penalty, and have since been released and exonerated due to the appeals process. Two were given life in prison, and they still sit there, 30 years later. The evidence that may have exonerated them was destroyed and/or lost by the police. Because the state screwed up, they get to keep these guys in prison because they can no longer be found innocent. Quite backwards from what the founders had in mind.

Why are these guys singing again? What a waste of a daily show.; June 25, 2008 11:27 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - DAMN YOU!!!!! LOL!!!!!!

Like I said I have the feeling they will deem it unconstitutional. I'm not really too concerned about it (for myself that is), but I do know a lot of people who are.

What does concern me the most is that if the Supreme Court does not rule on the side of the individual, how long will it be before they rule against the individual when it comes to other Civil Liberties (CL). I know this leads to a somewhat slippery slope argument, but it is one that could eventually lead to other CL's being lost.

Especially after seeing what the court did with the Exxon case - the court siding with the corporations and the way they ruled against private citizens when it comes to eminent domain. They are truly turning this country more and more into a fascist state.

That is my big concern if they don't rule it unconstitutional.; June 25, 2008 11:28 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
Washington D.C. is not a fascist state. I have problems with domestic wiretapping, with ruling for the corporations in major cases, and a million other restrictions on people's rights. Ruling against D.C. would make it more like a fascist state, reverting another power to the federal government. When is the last time the powers of the federal government were expanded this far? Ruling for D.C. would actually be ceding power to the states and the cities.

What is more, I would rather feel safe walking down the streets. We talk about our civil liberties and our right to bear arms, and all of that stuff... but now we're afraid to walk down our own streets. There are some streets we're afraid to walk down in daylight! In broad daylight! I've been to some of the nastiest parts of Europe, and I myself, nor no one else I've seen has ever been afraid to walk down the street.
How much liberty are we willing to give up to protect a "liberty" we don't need?; June 25, 2008 11:34 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - I agree with your argument in your 11:22 post. It appears as though your argument actually is in favor of the SCOTUS to rule the ban as unconstitutional.....Am I correct?; June 25, 2008 11:37 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: What will the SC do with the DC gun case? I think they will find some reason to send it back to the lower courts rather than rule on it right now.

As to the 2nd Amendment, I read it as power to the states in terms of maintaining (manning, equipping and training a militia). It does not give, in my reading, a specific authority to the citizens to own and carry a weapon outside of the militia.

I tend to look at the origin of the 2nd Amendment within the historical period when it was enacted.

Militias were important in the early period of the US. Communications were slow - the speed that a horse could travel long distances. If there was an Indian uprising in Maine, Kentucky or Georgia, or an attack by Britain in western Pennsylvania, or an attack by the Spanish in Georgia, how long would it take for the news to travel to the seat of the Federal Government (in New York City, then Philadelphia, back to New York, and finally in Washington, DC)? Then how long for the national government to amass and march an army to the area of discontent or invasion?

The states did not have state police, and only major metropolitan areas had a local constabulary. There was no method, except through a state militia, to do necessary 'police work', as defined by keeping the peace. It was much easier to send the alert to the state capital, alert, assemble and dispatch the militia in the state, and then inform the Federal government of the what and why, and ask for any additional assistance that might be required.

That's been my view for decades, and I'd find it difficult to believe that my perspective will change.

Mike; June 25, 2008 11:38 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
NOOOO!!!
It is COMPLETELY constitutional. The 2nd amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the people of the states. Since this is not an action of the federal government, it is outside of their scope of power. The federal government CAN make gun laws by arguing the commerce clause or the "necessary to carry out the powers reserved in the constitution" clause. They could not in any way rule any state or city ordinance unconstitutional, because the purpose was to limit the federal government's power, not the state or the cities.; June 25, 2008 11:42 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
I pretty much agree.

I also think that due to serious changes in our society, the second amendment is no longer necessary.; June 25, 2008 11:44 PM
Independent Voter said...: Trust me I understand (11:34) being afraid to walk down some streets (yes there are bad neighborhoods here too).

I may have misunderstood your 11:22 post, judging by your 11:34 post you are advocating for the SCOTUS to rule in favor of the ban.

Not to change subjects here, but the recent ruling upholding Voter ID laws extended rights to the states and that was a bad ruling. In Indiana nuns were not allowed to vote. Others were not allowed to vote because they didn't have ID. Is this not infringing on one's rights? I see this somewhat parallel to the gun ban.

Our guaranteed Constitutional Rights are federal provisions that are not reserved to the states. They are federally guaranteed rights. By upholding the the DC ban, what is going to stop other states/territories from passing the same type of bans. I agree with some regulation but banning guns altogether I think is wrong.; June 25, 2008 11:47 PM
Independent Voter said...: In my last post, please understand I don't think there is any good "hunting" in DC.....well ok there is a little good hunting...LOL; June 25, 2008 11:51 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
Cities have banned guns dating back to the wild west. Yes, the wild west. What stops them is the people, only when the people agree with the ban does it occur. WE are the ultimate check, and WE will not allow a complete ban. I would much prefer federal restrictions restricting the type of guns purchased, the number, the people who can purchase them, and the places they can purchase them, but our federal government has refused to do that. The voters will not let them. I believe that based on the interstate commerce clause they do in fact have the right. Wearing a gun would not make me feel any safer, because if they decide to shoot me, I won't decide to shoot them until afterwards. Shooting someone back doesn't make myself any less shot.

It really doesn't matter what I think... from their testimonies and questions on the bench, I am pretty sure they will kill the ban in one way or another. Both Roberts and Kennedy have criticized the ban from the bench, and the other three conservative votes are pretty much guaranteed. My guess is either Kennedy or Roberts will write the opinion, and it will force D.C. to rewrite their laws in order to allow some people to carry some type of weapon, but will still allow many restrictions. If I remember correctly, Roberts was quoted as saying, "How could a complete ban on guns ever be considered reasonable?" This makes me think he could not assign the opinion to Alito or Thomas, because they would be too harsh, and either Kennedy or Roberts would have to write consenting opinions or join the opposite side, making Alito or Thomas the dissenting opinion, instead of the majority.; June 25, 2008 11:57 PM
Independent Voter said...: Hey there Mike and p'd ant. I see I'm not going to "win" this argument not that I really think there is a real win or lose in this scenario. I can see both sides of the argument. It all depends on how they (SCOTUS) view the 2nd Amendment. Are they going to view it as a "state right" or an individual's rights. Or like both of you said, are they going to send it back down to the lower court to revisit (not send it back down to let the lower court ruling stand.); June 26, 2008 12:00 AM
apissedant said...: You are right with several of the amendments in the bill of rights, but the second and tenth amendment both specifically mention the states' rights. There is a reason for this. The other eight are about government of any sort overstepping its bounds, these two are specifically about the federal government overstepping its bounds. Otherwise, why would they specifically mention the states' rights?; June 26, 2008 12:01 AM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - from my understanding Scalia (the douchebag) is writing the majority opinion - so we can imagine what it is going to be.

I agree with the restrictions you would like to see. Unfortunately we have a spineless Congress that refuses to stand up to the NRA.; June 26, 2008 12:03 AM
apissedant said...: Dave,
Another interesting thing to look up. This was a serious argument at our founding. There were several different wordings of this particular amendment before they stuck to this one. The main concern, from what I've read, was problems with the Quakers. The Quakers did not/ do not believe in fighting and war. One version of the amendment actually required everyone to own a rifle in order to defend their respective states. This did not go over well, because the Quakers, who were a powerful force in the Pennsylvania delegation... refused to do this. The wording was softened for them.; June 26, 2008 12:04 AM
suzihussein22 said...: In these troubled times, I believe individuals still have a right to bear arms.

Bad neighborhoods? I went to Martin Luther King Jr. for junior high in downtown Nashville, TN. We had to watch for syringes while having P.E. outside. There was a gun fired one time while I was there. I grew up in a suburb. Even there somebody up the street was murdured in a drug related case.

I finally got an email back from Gordon today. He was also saddened and disappointed about the comments made by another TN Dem. who didn't inform himself before making remarks about Obama.; June 26, 2008 12:05 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Hello There:

As per the very Scientific Poll, Gallup, today, McCain and Obama are tied at 45%, which means Hillary's endorsement effect has melted away!

Newsweek's 12% blowout last weekwas terribly massaged, we know it.

Plus, as Commander-In-Chief role, people favor McCain by 80%!! Wow.

On AOL Straw Poll, which is less massaged by anyone, McCain leads overwhelmingly over the Junior!

Which one you believe?

I will take a poll of polls:

McCain 51% Obama 48% Others 1%.

Cindy and John McCain will be on the Inaugural Ball.

Stay tuned.
p.s. Nader will peel more away from Obama than Barr from McCain, nationwide, IMO.; June 26, 2008 12:06 AM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - "You are right with several of the amendments in the bill of rights, but the second and tenth amendment both specifically mention the states' rights. There is a reason for this. The other eight are about government of any sort overstepping its bounds, these two are specifically about the federal government overstepping its bounds. Otherwise, why would they specifically mention the states' rights?"

The way I read it is that the reference to State - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - refers to the nation and not the individual states.; June 26, 2008 12:06 AM
apissedant said...: James Madison, First Draft

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia
being the best security of a free country; but no person
religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled
to render military service in person."; June 26, 2008 12:07 AM
apissedant said...: Dave,
I can see your interpretation, but at this time, there was no national military. There were state militias.

Article 2 Section 2
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

The militias were state, the army and the navy were national. It specifically refers to the militias.; June 26, 2008 12:11 AM
apissedant said...: correction:
They were allowed to call up a military, but there was no standing military. The second sentence in the previous post is more important than the first. It is 12:11... gimme a break.; June 26, 2008 12:12 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Don't forget to play in the Veepstakes game on MSNBC - there is only a couple of rounds left...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24764369

.; June 26, 2008 12:20 AM
Independent Voter said...: LOL p'd ant. I'm headed to bed myself. We'll see what happens tomorrow, but I have the feeling that you and Mike are correct in that they will send it back to the lower court.; June 26, 2008 12:22 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: S.O.N. -

You really should start ready the real polls at

http://realclearpolitics.com/

No one is interested in your outlier polls and fake polls at AOL.

OBAMA '08; June 26, 2008 12:23 AM
Independent Voter said...: Agreed Leah. I try to not read the dolt's posts anymore.; June 26, 2008 12:26 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: s.o.n. said: "Cindy and John McCain will be on the Inaugural Ball."
______________

Yep - ON the outside looking in!

OBAMA '08; June 26, 2008 12:26 AM
Independent Voter said...: good night all. Good discussion tonight.; June 26, 2008 12:26 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "You really should start ready the real polls at"

ready? ha ha ha

Read "in the Inaugural Ball"

But Gallup should be a "real poll"!
Why not?

Check what people voted for good Commander-in-Chief question!
(gallup.com) 80% McCain! Wow

Stay tuned.; June 26, 2008 12:35 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: It is very telling when McCain can't even keep support in his home state!

McCain in Arizona:

April +20
May +11
June +10

at this rate Obama will win Arizona in November by twenty points :); June 26, 2008 12:35 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: An Inconvenient Truth:

Any thing doesn't agree with your politics will be called "outlier or fake"!

Good logic, in deed.; June 26, 2008 12:38 AM
suzihussein22 said...: Goodnight y'all. I've been going back and forth tonight between here and debating with my husband. He actually had to watch Gone With the Wind for history class so we ended up discussing the Civil War. He also wondered if the Scarlett character could set women's rights back umpteen years. I think Snow White could easier myself.; June 26, 2008 12:38 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: An article from WXII TV in Winston-Salem helps you understand why state governments seem so disfunctional at times.

Seems that some (up to 10,000) North Carolina license plates contain the letters 'WTF' as part of the lettering on the plate. Officials at the DMV are now scrambling to replace affected plates. Those same officials didn't realize what the term meant until they "got word of the plates last July when a 60-year-old technology teacher from Fayetteville complained about the plate after her teenage grandchildren clued her in."

First - They didn't realize what the term 'WTF' means? I knew what it meant four or more decades ago, well before the Internet or cell phone texting.

Second - This is now June, but they got word of it last July? And now they're scrambling to 'undo the damage'?

http://www.wxii12.com/news/16699280/detail.html

Oh, to top off the embarrassment, the DMV website until recently showed a license plate with the 'WTF' lettering. LOL

Mike; June 26, 2008 12:40 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: In the past week McCain has lost ground in many of the red states that had been solid for him (and should have been a sure thing) BUT now have changed to leaners:

Alaska
Montana
Texas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Georgia

By November the electoral map will look like a big BLUE BLUEBERRY !!!

Obama '08; June 26, 2008 12:43 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: On Nader and Barr:

Nader is known nationally as a Consumer Advocate and a Liberal Ideologue - comparing to him, BHO is just Nader-Lite. He has much better name recognition than Barr or even Obama!

Barr is NOT known outside GA at all.

Therefore, Nader would pull more votes away from multiple States from BHO, than Barr from McCain.

Nader can bring 2000 back to 2008!

Stay tuned.; June 26, 2008 12:46 AM
suzihussein22 said...: leah-This could be McCain's new mascot-

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/6596b2da-2bbb-4df9-b4a9-64e3a896bbc9.jpg

Go Blue '08; June 26, 2008 12:46 AM
Independent Voter said...: ss - LMAO! Is there a "blue-ball" pun intended in that one?

Now I really am going to bed....good night all.; June 26, 2008 12:49 AM
apissedant said...: Night Dave, night soft!; June 26, 2008 12:51 AM
suzihussein22 said...: leah-ROTFL! Uh, wouldn't you need a pair for that pun to be intended.? ;); June 26, 2008 12:54 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: ss - Great photo ;)

To all of ya'll that are going to bed or have already gone 'goodnight'.

Obama/Blueberry Map '08

.; June 26, 2008 1:04 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Indy:

You are wasting all your prime time on blogging.

Get your BA on time. Start working and paying tax.

Don't be on Govt handout for too long!

Bleeding liberals depend on Big Govt for too long.

When will it stop?
_______________________________

Is TX on the Blueberry Map too?

Maybe not!; June 26, 2008 1:11 AM
suzihussein22 said...: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnyquotes/a/anncoulter.htm

This is what I found in the famous idiot section of political humor, just trying to keep a lighter perspective on things. That female doesn't speak for me. I can't wait to bring this up to my Libertarian in-law who thinks Fox News is so great.; June 26, 2008 1:32 AM
suzihussein22 said...: This is reassuring-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080625/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_draft_dc;_ylt=AlbrMgypqdisewj6l1gZgWJh24cA

Some of our troops are on their third tour.; June 26, 2008 2:00 AM
Joshua said...: 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Here's how I read it: The Constitution has previously established that the only legitimate government is one that derives its powers from the consent of the people. A government that governs without the consent of the people is a tyranny. It is the obligation of the people to remove/change by any way necessary, a tyrannical government.

That is, the people need to properly regulate its militia to make sure that it serves the people and not a tyrannical government. The people need to keep and bear arms to keep the militia in check.

It would seem absurd to me for the Constitution to state that the militia needs to keep and bear guns. This is what a militia does. The Constitution is merely stating that the people need to keep and bear their own guns to prevent government goons from running amok.; June 26, 2008 2:15 AM
apissedant said...: Mike,
You are very misinformed about the militia and history. You cannot only highlight one portion of a sentence and pretend that is what the sentence means. I already posted the original wording written by James Madison. The people in the militia were supposed to provide their own weapons. That was the original intent of the second amendment, because the Revolutionary Army was far short of weapons and needed armed members who knew how to shoot a gun.

Read a history book about the revolution. David McCullough wrote a great one, all you have to do is remember what year the revolution started, and it should be easy to find from there.. Good luck.

I would honestly delete the last post. It is the most unique, historically inaccurate, and misguided interpretation of the second amendment I have ever read in my entire life.; June 26, 2008 2:47 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Mike,

So who regulates the militia and how?

After all, the first four words of the 2nd Amendment are "A well regulated Militia".

If arms are to be kept by the people for militia purposes, then the amendment means people can keep arms because of the militia purpose.

If arms are not to be denied to the people for any reason, then why does the Amendment even mention the word 'militia'?

It is because the Amendment begins with "A well regulated Militia" is why I believe you torture the wording to give any and every citizen the right to 'bear arms' for any reason beyond a militia purpose.

Mike; June 26, 2008 3:01 AM
apissedant said...: MILITIAS were run by the STATES... the ARMY and NAVY were run by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Many states' rights advocates were afraid of tyranny of the federal government. Part of the purpose of the second amendment was to allow the state militias to fight against federal tyranny and the federal government disarming the state militias.

Another major purpose was insuring the state militias were armed to protect the state from Indians, foreigners, and insurrections within the state. Another reason was to make sure that the state militias were well armed in case the federal government called them up to serve the nation. They toyed with the idea of actually forcing everyone to own a rifle, but this attempt failed.

It was not to allow the civilians to revolt against government when they felt oppressed. This explains the negative outcome of the Whiskey Rebellion. Many uneducated and angry citizens misinterpreted the second amendment as a right to revolt, and Washington marched in with the state militias and stamped out the revolution.
Under the Articles of Confederation, a similar incident occurred with Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts. This Rebellion was also stamped out by the state militias, though not as convincingly. Both acts were deemed illegal.

From wikipedia:
"There was a lack of an institutional response to the uprising, which energized calls to reevaluate the Articles of Confederation and gave strong impetus to the Constitutional Convention which began in May 1787."; June 26, 2008 3:04 AM
apissedant said...: Mike in Md,
Agreed. From what I understand, his idea is that the militia is mentioned because the militia is why the people need to be armed. We have to be armed to keep the militia in check. That way the government knows if it oversteps its bounds, we'll punch back.
Historically inaccurate, and implausible in today's world. When everyone had single shot rifles, a well armed and organized town might be able to fight back an oppressive government. Today, with huge cities, a huge military, huge police forces, and the fact they are armed with AK-47s, armored vehicles, tanks, apaches, and F-16s... it would be a rather amusing battle. Well, at least if you find death, destruction, and annihilation of a town amusing.; June 26, 2008 3:10 AM
tmess2 said...: One thing to remember in discussing the Second Amendment is that militias were not standing armies. They were local units composed of the entire male citizenry.

Other parts of the Bill of Rights also refer to other "temporary" gatherings of the citizenry -- including the First Amendment's reference to the rights of the people to peaceably assemble and petition and the emphasis on juries and grand juries (then seen as popular participation in the judicial process) in several of the Amendments. In addition, the Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment all make reference to the rights of the People as distinct from the rights of state governments.; June 26, 2008 3:51 AM
apissedant said...: tmess2,
Agreed, but I'm not sure where you're heading with the final sentence. It could be construed to point in either direction, so I'm curious what your final interpretation is.; June 26, 2008 4:26 AM
apissedant said...: although as discussed before, the militia was not exactly ALL male citizens, but it was supposed to be pretty much all of them.; June 26, 2008 4:29 AM
Joshua said...: The militia in the 2nd Amendment is the same as the army, not state militia. The word state in that amendment is what we call “country” today. Otherwise the Amendment would have said “states,” plural since there were 13 not 1 state. The word “people” was used several times in the Bill of Rights. It means exactly what it still means today. People. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Declaration of Independence states: When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolved the political bands which have connected them with another…

It goes on to say: Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The preamble to the Constitution begins with: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States…”

The 1st Amendment talks about “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”

There is absolutely no ambiguity in the 2nd amendment. THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.; June 26, 2008 4:52 AM
suzihussein22 said...: Pres. Bush is addressing us in the Rose Garden about N. Korea.; June 26, 2008 7:42 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Hello There:

What's new here? Nothing. But...

As Commander-in-Chief 80% of American voters prefer McCain. Wow..

The Junior is being pummeled by both Nader and Dobson.

Who's going to his rescue?

Maybe, Carter? lol After all, he is just Carter II in "Tax and Spend Big Gov Policies"

BHO = Inexperienced = Risky.

Stay tuned.; June 26, 2008 9:44 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "It does not give, in my reading, a specific authority to the citizens to own and carry a weapon outside of the militia."

Absurd.

It does give; that's the whole essence and purpose of this Amendment!

But, some restriction or regulation is quite possible by the local jurisdictions.

The Court will say this today, I hope. This clarification is long over due. They should not postpone this anymore.

Stay tuned.; June 26, 2008 10:11 AM
Independent Voter said...: Well guys, the ruling has come down and the SCOTUS has struck down the DC handgun ban.; June 26, 2008 10:17 AM
jean said...: Yep
You knew there was no way.
good morning.; June 26, 2008 10:21 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: mike:

I fully agree. But, I believe the local jurisdiction may have the power to regulate it or control it to the larger good of the people.

______________________________

As per gallup.com,

McCain and BHO are tied at 45%.

But, on the issue of who is more qualified to be the Commander-in-Chief,

McCain got a whopping 80% approval rating yesterday. This is huge.

Perhaps, this is what is reflected in the AOL Straw Poll!

Interesting,

When the Republican President is at 28% and Pelosi/Reid's Congress is at 18%, McCain is leading way above the Junior.

McCain cannot be McSame, folks.

He is the Maverick! The Next POTUS.

Stop Obama Now. He is inexperienced, thus risky.; June 26, 2008 10:22 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Hey guys sounds like some heavy stuff is being talked about on here since the last time I was on here.

I do have an opinion!!!! It's probably, matter of fact a strong one!!

1.dealth penalty for raping children kill the SOB. Unless you have been raped you have no idea what it's like and the lasting effect it has on you. So why should he have i minute of any kind of pleasure in life. Of course I would save the state money and kill the SOB myself.

In gun banning that is totally STUPID!!! Do you think it would keep robbing and murder at bay come on get real.

Smoking even though I smoke I don't smoke in my home or if I get around people that don't smoke I step away from them when I smoke.

This country is making so many laws that is taking your freedom away from you and people are being SO SELFISH because they don't like some things. I don't like being around people that don't bathe, that have filty mouths,that drink heavy, that are rude. Yes I do realize that these things are at least most you will say will not have a med. effect but they do cause STRESS which has an effect on my stomach. Yes people should be more considered but that is life sometimes it's not pretty.

I really HATE [yes that is a strong word] when people try and force me to go by their wishes. What I do with my children is non of no ones business other than if I'm abusing them. To want to make a law to do this or that with is TOTALLY selfish just because that is what you believe a good parent should do. Both my parents smoked when I was a little girl and do you know how many times I went to the doctor for Illness [NEVER!!!!!!]. I have smoked for 42 years and I don't take any kind of med for nothing. I have good BP and am very heathly person over all. My mother in law had terrible lungs never smoked never was around smoke and the doctor tried to blame it on tobacco any which way he could but he couldn't. Do I think cigarettes are bad for you YES, do I think second hand smoke is bad for you not really unless you are in a confinded area. You might not like the smell but maybe I don't like your looks so go get a bag. To want to start making laws to stop this and that is the worst thing a person could do and it really pisses me off when someone wants me to conform to their way of thinking this is a free country KEEP IT THAT WAY!!!! Quit trying to force your will on me I don't want it or need it.Maybe I don't like the way your kids act most kids now days are brats, teenagers are rude cuss like a sailor.They had just as long as tell you FU as to look at you but that's ok. Yea right. Instead of people telling me what to do they need to pay attenence to their own lives and deal with it.

Sorry about the long post but I feel very very angry when people start talking about wanting to take my rights away from me. Jean; June 26, 2008 10:23 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: On Obama's SS TAX increase:

Sen Obama says he is lifting the income cap for households making more than $250 K (remember, this is for the combined household income, not the individual income) in order to preserve the SS Fund.

This is a lie.

Because, as a Big Govt Big Spender he will always run a huge budget deficit - he will always loot the SS Fund, leaving behind an IOU paper in the SS Fund Coffer.

When it comes to redeem the IOU paper, the Fed General Revenue will NOT have any money left. Then, again he or another President will raise the tax still further. This is a complete fraud.

Unless, he commits himself for a "Lock Box" for the SS Fund as proposed by Gore in 2000, and commits to a Balanced Budget, his proposal to increase the SS Tax is just another way of confiscating more money from highly productive citizens of this struggling country. Shame on you, BHO.

Stop Obama Now. He is Carter II.

See you in the evening. Get to work.; June 26, 2008 10:44 AM
jean said...: Good Morning Aunt Jean,
I agree with most you have to say.
Peoples intolerance of others and their selfishness is getting quite out of hand.
And please don't put all teenagers in that bracket.
I have a 14 and 16 year old and though they drive me crazy they are good kids.
Science has proven that chemically their brains do work differently and sometimes they really DON'T get it. That is where our patience and tolerance comes in;)
I personally think that if the kid is rude you need to tell the parents to pull their own head out of their butt. The kid did not get that way on their own.
jean; June 26, 2008 10:48 AM
apissedant said...: Mike,
Apparently you can't read.
Constitution:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
There is no national militia, so reference to one would make no sense. You yourself used the words, "we the people," they were speaking as the government, and saying the people, because the government was made up of and represented the people.

Washington Post:
"The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history."
This is the first time in history the SCOTUS has ever declared that people have a right to guns for self-defense or hunting. The original wording of the second amendment. No one even argued this idea until about 70 years AFTER the constitution was ratified. Cities in the wild west banned guns, and the idea was never challenged.

wikipedia:
"Another major point of contention is whether it protects an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] At present, two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view."
"The concept of a universal militia, consisting of all free white men bearing their own arms, originated in England.[14] The requirement that subjects bear arms, serve military duty,[15][16][17][18] dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense (see Assize of Arms). At that time, it was customary for a soldier to purchase, maintain, keep, and bring their own armor and weapon for military service. This was of such importance that Crown officials gave periodic inspections to guarantee a properly armed militia. King Henry III required every subject between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land owning subjects) to own a weapon other than a knife."

It is amazing how retarded you are. You have decided that you are more intelligent and understanding of the found fathers than most legal scholars, those that have run our government for the last 220 years, AND THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. All of their writings disagree with you.

The Virginia Constitution, written in 1776 and which many parts of the US constitution was based:
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power"

The Federalist Papers article written by James Madison, who also authored the second amendment:
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

original wording written by James Madison:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You have shown no real evidence for your side, just continually bastardized the amendment by deleting half of it, as did the current SC, for the first time in 220 years.

"The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia."

Dave,
Pretty much what I expected, but I'm waiting for the opinion to be posted so I can read it. The paper says that it leaves most laws intact.

From me last night:
"It really doesn't matter what I think... from their testimonies and questions on the bench, I am pretty sure they will kill the ban in one way or another. Both Roberts and Kennedy have criticized the ban from the bench, and the other three conservative votes are pretty much guaranteed. My guess is either Kennedy or Roberts will write the opinion, and it will force D.C. to rewrite their laws in order to allow some people to carry some type of weapon, but will still allow many restrictions."; June 26, 2008 10:55 AM
Independent Voter said...: stopobamanow/yamaka=mccain=dolt=village idiot=MIA=weak on politics.

I can't believe you are still here posting your dribble.

By the way, I am ahead of schedule as to when I will graduate. Second, I'm not getting much in the way of "government handouts" as you like to call it. I'm getting $500 in pell grants (for the entire year). I'm getting my education mostly on scholarships (yes, a 3.85 gpa gets you NICE SIZED scholarships) and an occasional student loan. So tell me village idiot, where is this liberal government handout that you speak of. My partner and I are registered as domestic partners, therefore his income is figured in on my financial aid forms with the school - it is a requirement here in CA if you are registered as domestic partners. We could have unregistered which I would have qualified for more than $6000 per year in "government handouts" but we chose to remain registered. This allows $5500 of that to go to other people who truly need it. An individual cannot opt out of receiving grants from the school they attend.

Goodbye Village Idiot! I hear your fellow villagers are looking for you.; June 26, 2008 10:56 AM
Independent Voter said...: I hear ya p'd ant. I had that feeling, but was somewhat hoping they would just send it back down to the lower court for review.; June 26, 2008 10:58 AM
Independent Voter said...: Aunt Jean,

Feel better? What a rant! LOL!!! I don't have much time so I'm making it quick.

I talk to you a little later. :); June 26, 2008 11:00 AM
apissedant said...: United STATES of America.

The fact that the word STATE is not plural in the second amendment is irrelevant.

By that logic, the seventh amendment only applies to one soldier, and the fifth amendment only applies to one person.
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

They claimed it was necessary to a state to have a well regulated militia. This also means that it is necessary for ALL STATES to have a well regulated militia. It does not say "necessary and proper for OUR state" it says "necessary and proper for A state."; June 26, 2008 11:07 AM
apissedant said...: Dave,
Why doesn't my GPA get me any scholarships? I should transfer to your school.; June 26, 2008 11:08 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: aunt jean, I would never try to pry your ciggies out of your hands (unless you came to me as a patient). however, I would point out (gently and politely) that some people have very real allergies and problems with cigarette smoke. I know one woman (a friend of mine) with multiple chemical sensitivities. She has exactly two environments where she can breathe without starting to squeak: (a) pure mountain or seaside air, away from everywhere else; (b) in her own home with all sorts of filters going. She lives a very isolated existence.

you may be blessed with a sturdy constitution in that you can tolerate smoke, but please, if someone says that they have a medical problem with it, I beg you to respect that person.

ps, my step grampa smoked from 16 all the way to 90+ when he passed from lung cancer. some people are blessed with enzymes that prevent the lung damage, although even that is not 100%; June 26, 2008 11:12 AM
apissedant said...: Aunt Jean,
I agree with everything you say except gun laws. The fact is almost every gun used in a crime was legally purchased at one time or another. The problem with one city or one state make restrictive laws, is that we can so easily move from one state or one city to another. A ban on guns in D.C. is very easy to get around, because Virginia has very weak laws. Drive five minutes south, by a few guns, drive five minutes north, and resell them illegally. I don't know if it is possible to find anymore, but Bill Bradley wrote a wonderful 6 page essay on gun control when he ran for President in 2000. It was well source, and cited statistics and common sense. If enacted, it would allow nearly everyone to own a gun, but would severely limit the number of guns making it into criminal hands. This is common sense and intelligent gun legislation, what we have now is not.
The kid from Virginia Tech was not legally allowed to buy a gun, but both gun dealers he purchased guns from were legally allowed to sell him guns. Does that make any sense at all?; June 26, 2008 11:14 AM
apissedant said...: vicki,
That is exactly what she and I are both speaking of. I also smoke, although I am attempting to quit AGAIN, and hopefully FOREVER.
I don't smoke around my non-smoking friends, and I work with someone who has strong allergies, and I avoid her when I smoke, and for awhile after I finish smoking. She avoids the area outside within which everyone smokes. That is common courtesy and common sense. A law from preventing people from smoking anywhere where she might be is excessive and offensive. She also cannot walk on the side of a busy road, should we now make cars illegal so that she can walk in this area too? No one here is arguing for smoking in movie theaters, malls, schools, or anywhere else where people are forced to be in close quarters with each other. A restaurant or bar is a different beast all together. There is typically proper ventilation, and there are both smoking and non-smoking versions of each. Chili's has made smoking in their restaurant against their rules. My wife refused to eat there after the policy took effect, but I'm sure non-smokers were quite happy about it. We still had several restaurants we could attend.; June 26, 2008 11:21 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Vicki in Seattle

in the first place everyone alive is allergic to cigarettes there is something that the cigarette companies put [remember I said put] in cigarettes that people have an allergic reaction to. There as I know NO test that is available as to where they test you for allerergic reactions to cigarette smoke.Maybe instead of trying to control what people do in this FREE world maybe we should ban the chemicals they put in them. It's people like you [sory] and others that try and control how I live my life that really gets me. I should in your eyes lives my live according to your rules but when some of your rules are in question you would be the first one to be hollering like hell. {It's really shitty]. I'm a grown woman and pay my bills and I don't need someone to look over my shoulders. Good or bad it's my life!!!!!!!Jean; June 26, 2008 11:38 AM
Aunt Jean said...: apissedant

as far as gun rules yes there should be rulesfor the safty of the people. There should be back ground checks and if you have been convicted of a fed. no you shouldn't own a gun. There should be a place where people even privte owners could go to to get back ground checks on people. I own a gun for protection and I'm not going to give it up.In this world of conputers that should be easy. Jean; June 26, 2008 11:42 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Vicki in Seattle

can you 100% say if smoking was banned it would get rid of all the things that they say smoking does. NO!!!!!!!!! Can you say 100% if your friend wasn't ever around smoke would she have the same problems NO!!!!!!!!!!!. So to blame just cigarette smoke is wrong. No I say cigarettes do have an effect on it. Nothing in life is 100% and for someone to act like it is is wrong in my books.

This country is losing so many of it's freedoms and rights that it's really not a free country anymore because of crap like that. It needs to stop!!!!!!!. There is so many things that I see is wrong but who am I to say that is the best thing for that person. I'm not and neither or YOU!!!!!! Jean; June 26, 2008 11:51 AM
JayW said...: Richard,

Regarding your post yesterday at 4:20 PM... you sound like a moron.
1. Who considers wagering "immoral"? No one I know or work with. You must live in a monestary.
2. Wagering is only a "waste of money" if you lose. Maybe that logic escapes you.

______

Leah,

As for your follow up post... go be a mother to someone who needs it, I don’t. If you don’t like my posts, don’t read them. I am subjected to reading your rantings on a daily basis but I dont tell you to stop posting.

______

StopO/Yam,

Daily offer that you haven’t acknowledged yet…

I will take Obama in the general election and you can have the field. I will cover any bet amount you would like. Put your money where your mouth is... unless even you don’t believe what you say.

_________

PS... I will stop making the daily bet offer once it has been acknowledged by StopO/Yam. Once he actually acknowledges it and either declines or accepts then I will stop... but not until.; June 26, 2008 11:52 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave sorry but it just totally pisses me off when someone has the balls to try and force what they like or want on me.!!Jean; June 26, 2008 11:54 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Jean I didn't mean that every teen was a little turd there are some that the parents care what they do.! That they are a joy to be around yes LOL inmature but fun. Jean; June 26, 2008 11:58 AM
apissedant said...: Holy crap I hate the Supreme Court. I do not know how the four liberal justices get out of bed and go to work in the morning.

"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

According to the words of Justice Scalia, the Antifederalists, also known as the "states' rights" group, were afraid of a tyrannical federal government from oppressing them and taking their guns. In the spirit of this, they are preventing the states and cities from controlling guns. HUH!?!?!?
Can you say non sequitur?; June 26, 2008 12:07 PM
apissedant said...: aunt jean,
What most people don't realize is that almost all people for gun control laws do not want to ban guns. They don't even mind people owning guns for personal protection. The idea is common sense laws that help prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands.

The whole city ban is a totally different beast. I would much rather have good federal regulations, than entire city bans. I defend the D.C. ban only because Constitutionally, it is their right, whether I agree with it or not. The people of D.C. made a decision, so why should I, in Hampton, Virginia have any right to tell them their decision is wrong? That is precisely what the Constitution was trying to avoid with this amendment.; June 26, 2008 12:11 PM
Joshua said...: I don’t understand why many left-wing loony pinkos prefer to live in an effete society. The Second Amendment states clearly “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But the feminized people want to pretend that the Amendment is talking about the militia bearing guns!

A particular poster here stands out. When I first posted at this site, that individual posted that he was an expert in Chemistry and was smarter than people who are in training to become doctors. Yet that poster posted that nuclear energy was derived from fossil fuels. He further posted that to him force and energy were the same. Anyone who studied high school Physics knows the absurdity of that statement. That poster has posted several times railing about doctors making so much money. He thinks that doctors, teachers, firemen, receptionists, etc, all should be paid at exactly the same rate.

Last night I posted that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says. But that poster immediately jumped and told me that I should read a history book.

To that poster I say: speak less and listen more and your life will go in a better trajectory than current. Each time you post you display an amazing degree of lack of knowledge.; June 26, 2008 12:16 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
I was completely wrong on the author. I am honestly surprised that they chose Scalia to write it. I didn't read the whole opinion, because it appears to be 65 pages of retardation. He cherry picks historical "facts", and uses complete non sequiturs to support his argument. The two dissents are each 45 pages.; June 26, 2008 12:17 PM
apissedant said...: From Scalia, proving an earlier point:
"Miller did not hold that and
cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment
in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge
two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered
short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce,"

The interstate commerce clause can do anything... it is my favorite clause :); June 26, 2008 12:19 PM
apissedant said...: He abandons history and argues against himself:
"This holding is not only consistent with, but positively
suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual
right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that
“have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia”)."; June 26, 2008 12:20 PM
tmess2 said...: Actually, as noted above, this ruling does not necessarily effect states and cities.

Generally speaking, cities are created by state law. Washington DC is an exception in that it is created by federal law. As such, Washington DC has no more powers than the federal government.

As such, today's decision is about what the federal government can do under the Second Amendment.

Whether or not the Second Amendment also applies to the states is another matter for another time. (I have fears about how Scalia will rule but hopefully he will remember that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted at a time that militias of armed citizenry were seen as a bad thing by the folks in Congress.)

On a related point, if you read both the writings of both sides in the ratification debate, there was a clear distinction between the government (those folks currently in office) and the People (the full conglomeration of those citizens eligible to vote).; June 26, 2008 12:21 PM
apissedant said...: "The Second Amendment right, protecting only individuals’
liberty to keep and carry arms, did nothing to assuage
Antifederalists’ concerns about federal control of the militia."

"JUSTICE STEVENS thinks it significant that the Virginia,
New York, and North Carolina Second Amendment proposals
were “embedded . . . within a group of principles
that are distinctly military in meaning,” such as statements
about the danger of standing armies. Post, at 22.
But so was the highly influential minority proposal in
Pennsylvania, yet that proposal, with its reference"

I think he assumes no one actually reads these opinions. He just said that the MINORITY opinion of the Pennsylvania legislature was more important than the MAJORITY opinions of Virginia and New York, the two most powerful states in the union, that gave birth to 4 of the first 5 Presidents.; June 26, 2008 12:28 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: jean, I'm not telling you not to smoke - just to respect it if someone tells you that they are allergic. I'm not personally allergic.

however, I am a doctor, and I tell all my smoking patients to stop, and offer whatever help/assistance I can, that they would like to try to stop. I'd be a piss-poor doc if I failed to do that.

but you are not my patient, and I'm not telling you to stop.; June 26, 2008 12:36 PM
apissedant said...: tmess2,
I don't know if you already read all 150 pages, but if you did... wow. In any case... I have to disagree with you.

"a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

He is most definitely saying that there is a second amendment right to keep and bear arms, and that the government cannot infringe on it. The federal government did not impose the D.C. gun ban, the elected representatives of the city of D.C. did.

" (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

My favorite part:
"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54."

HUH!?!?!? Those two statements also do not agree. A .22 is in common use for lawful purposes, but it is most definitely of no use to the militia. His "i.e." portion is actually a completely different statement than that which precedes it.; June 26, 2008 12:37 PM
Joshua said...: “Whether or not the Second Amendment also applies to the states …”

That is amazing. Instead of accepting the 2nd Amendment, liberals will look for any way to gut the Constitution. FYI, the “states” also come under the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court is the supreme interpreter of the Constitution for all the States in the union. What is wrong with you liberals?; June 26, 2008 12:40 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
You have proven that you cannot only misquote me, but also misquote the framers of the constitution. The second amendment is one single sentence, and you seem to have misplaced half of it in your post.

I never said I was an "expert" nor anything else. I said I do in fact tutor premed students in Organic Chemistry. Those don't have anywhere near the same meaning.

The fossil fuel thing was explained as an analogy to explain that nuclear is a nonrenewable resource, which was clearly understood by all those involved. Why this would relate to Chemistry at all I do not know, my knowledge of nuclear power comes from before my Chemistry education, when I was one of many that ran a nuclear power plant in the US Navy.

As for force and energy, well that just never happened. That one you have clearly just made up.

Anyone who wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is "feminized." Interesting. Again Mike, go read a history book, you are truly without a case.; June 26, 2008 12:42 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Vicki in Seattle

I really do agree that people should have more respect for people that have breathing problems. All I'm saying is it should be done as a common respect not because they are forced. Yes I do consider other people when I smoke. But if I'm sitting there smoking and you choose to come where I'm at don't stand and call me a sorry bit## because I won't put my cigarette out. I have had that happen to me.Jean; June 26, 2008 12:44 PM
apissedant said...: I have also never argued for Communism where all people earn the same income. You have made that up as well. You know, when you lie in your arguments, it makes it very hard to ever win an argument. There is a clear written record here of everything everyone has said, and I guarantee you that you will never find that. I invite you to look.

I cannot look for you, because proving the absence of something is not really possible, but if you are correct, then you should most definitely be able to find proof of that statement.; June 26, 2008 12:45 PM
Joshua said...: apissedant look at your post from June 10, 2008 1:22 PM where you clearly confuse force and fuel. So, not only are you ignorant, you are also a liar.

Q.E.D.; June 26, 2008 12:53 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Vicki

I'm not really trying to get on your case and as a doctor you have to do or suggest what is right for your patients I have respect for that.Well I'm gone for now so we can take this back up later . Jean; June 26, 2008 12:53 PM
apissedant said...: I thought that the premed education required taking a class on logic and philosophy, but apparently that assumption was either incorrect, or some just failed to actually learn anything from the course. Black and white thinking is one of the main illogical types or arguments made. By saying I am smarter than SOME doctors does not mean I am stating that I am smarter than ALL doctors. I would even go so far to say that EVERY doctor knows more about prescribing medicine and the medical profession than I know on a whole.

An argument for equitable pay and equitable taxes does not mean equal. Equitable means: characterized by equity or fairness; just and right; fair; reasonable: equitable treatment of all citizens.
This does not mean all people are taxed or paid the same, but instead that the pay is fair, and that the payments to the government are fair. Equal would most definitely not be fair.
This would be another example of inaccurate and illogical black and white thinking. Maybe you should go back to school and pick up a few refresher courses on English and logic.; June 26, 2008 12:57 PM
apissedant said...: Analogy: similarity or comparability

Fossil fuels and uranium are both naturally occurring items that have a limited supply. Many reports actually contend that we have roughly the same amount of each left (in time left until they are "used up" under current consumption patterns), making the analogy quite appropriate between the two.; June 26, 2008 12:59 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
Again you have shown your inability to understand both English and logic. Assuming you were right (which you are not), the only choices would not be lying or telling the truth. There is the option of being mistaken. This is not the case, as I am correct, but it would still have to be an option.

"Force" was used in reference to the government "forcing" people. It had nothing to do with energy. Physics is not the only area where force is used. Force: to put or impose (something or someone) forcibly on or upon a person: to force one's opinions on others.

There are actually 36 definitions of force listed at www.dictionary.com. I suggest you read them, because less than half apply to physics. So you are again either an idiot or a liar, because you are most definitely incorrect.; June 26, 2008 1:06 PM
apissedant said...: unabridged statement on the issue:

mike,
I use force, and fossil fuel liberally. I realize uranium would not be considered a fossil, but I use this word to indicate that it too, is not a limitless supply. It varies from solar, wind, and water power in that we will eventually have a panic due to it disappearing as well. As for "force," it is a twisted arm move. A free market does not have taxes on certain items like cigarettes and liquor to limit use. The idea of these taxes, as well as the gasoline tax imposed in other nations, is to entice people against using the items. It is to financially force them to find other means of living or having fun.; June 26, 2008 1:08 PM
apissedant said...: Your unabridged response:

Apis,

Very well, but I distinguish between force (that acts to alter momentum) and energy/fuel (capacity to do work).

Your point of being finite is good. That is why my preferred is solar energy. This of course includes wind and hydro – different manifestations of solar energy). Solar energy is infinite as far as we are concerned. Any humans alive in 5 billion years can worry about end of solar energy.

Though you still did not understand that I was not talking about a physical force, but instead a government's ability to impose a belief, it is quite obvious you understand my analogous representation of nuclear power.

It is the same as you calling us, "feminized." I do not have a vagina, and I do not lactate. I have obviously not been literally feminized. To assume you meant that I grew a vagina would be silly, and a little retarded. To criticize your statement because I have obviously not been literally feminized, would either disingenuous or retarded. Pick your poison.; June 26, 2008 1:13 PM
apissedant said...: I was using both force, and fossil liberally, not interchangeably. Again the difference:
liberally-not strict or rigorous; free; not literal

interchangeably-capable of being put or used in the place of each other:

That is your English and logic lesson for the day. Come back when you need another. I'm sure it won't take long.; June 26, 2008 1:16 PM
Beryl said...: Priceless quotes, soft.

The extreme right is looking so bad right now. They are responsible for over 1 million deaths based on a proven LIE and deceptions. No one wants to be called "Conservative" because of those idiots.

I love having lived to see the pendulum swing.; June 26, 2008 1:19 PM
Joshua said...: As an individual I cherish my CCDW license. It forces people to treat each other politely. It reduces the incidence of road rage, rape, violence, burglary, etc. If you never know who is packing, you are more likely to behave in a civil manner. For pinko feminized liberals who are not familiar with the acronym, it means: someone who legally carries a concealed deadly weapon.

There is no way that the Washington DC ban on guns makes any sense. Has their ban reduced gun violence in DC? That genie is out of the bottle. Ban guns and only criminals will carry them and they will prey on the innocent with impunity.

The same argument goes with nations. The nuclear proliferation ban is equally idiotic. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. If every country possessed nuclear weapons, countries will be forced to be better world citizens, and no country could bully another. Just look at Iraq. Bush listed what he called “axis of evil.” Except that he chose not to include any nation with nuclear weapons. And when one of those “axis of evil” nations made it known that they now possess nuclear weapons we began negotiating with them while we attacked Iraq. No country on this planet with sane population and the ability will forswear nuclear arms if they do not want to be bullied.; June 26, 2008 1:28 PM
Beryl said...: apissedant

"Why doesn't my GPA get me any scholarships? I should transfer to your school."

I hear you. GPAs are not standard. 4.0 GPAs (regular 4.0 scale) in CA for example are equivalent to 3.5 (or less) in CO.
I got scholarships based on my SAT and ACT scores (Math - 99 percentile). They told me that I would have gotten nothing if they relied on my Colorado GPA.; June 26, 2008 1:30 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
The genie is out of your bottle too. It obviously isn't forcing anyone to act politely in public or in here. Your actions and my own are a great example of that. My roommate has the permit as well, and I'm in a state that allows them. The people are no nicer here than any other state.

The argument on "only criminals will have them" is stupid and silly too. Nearly all guns were legally purchased initially. The largest source for criminals getting guns is people reselling their guns. Some people actually make a business out of buying guns in Georgia and reselling them in New York illegally.

If you haven't noticed, no one here is arguing for a ban on guns. The argument was whether or not D.C. had the right to decide whether or not they would allow guns.; June 26, 2008 1:41 PM
Joshua said...: Speak for yourself. I have always remained polite. You are always uncivil. You are uncivil because you have the mistaken notion that you are anonymous here. You say things that I am confident you would never have the guts to say face to face.; June 26, 2008 2:36 PM
apissedant said...: mike said,
For pinko feminized liberals

That is one example of you not being polite, and there are many more... including your assault not only on myself, and several others, as well as your assault on the poor.
You have also called me a liar, and implied I am dumb.
Please explain how this is polite, and how I have been MORE uncivil than that.; June 26, 2008 2:45 PM
Joshua said...: The shoe must fit since you choose to wear it. I did not call anyone a pinko. I merely talked in generalities. But obviously you choose to recognize yourself as one of the “pinkos.”

As Christ said to Pontius Pilate about never having claimed to be king: “you say that I am king.”; June 26, 2008 2:57 PM
apissedant said...: mike said,
I don’t understand why many left-wing loony pinkos prefer to live in an effete society. The Second Amendment states clearly “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But the feminized people want to pretend that the Amendment is talking about the militia bearing guns!

A particular poster here stands out. When I first posted at this site, that individual posted that he was an expert in Chemistry and was smarter than people who are in training to become doctors.

You try to hide behind not using anyone's individual screen names, but this is rather silly. There is no one else on this site majoring in Chemistry or applying for Chemistry graduate school. Everyone here knows exactly who you were referring to. Don't patronize those of us on this site.; June 26, 2008 3:04 PM
Joshua said...: Here’s my post that you saw as an affront on you as a person: “I don’t understand why many left-wing loony pinkos prefer to live in an effete society.” Nowhere in that post did I refer to you or any poster on this site. The post referred to loony pinkos.

Why are you so megalomaniacal to think that everything is about yourself?

My original post on 2nd Amendment last night that you immediately attacked out of the blue, how did the post refer to you?

Friend, you have a mental illness.; June 26, 2008 3:07 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
I actually posted a much more complete version of your post, where you do refer to me, though not by name. As to attacking last night. Yes I did attack, I have no problem admitting that. You have attacked me multiple times before, and you said something seriously misinformed, and worthy of attack.

I don't mind attacking those who attack me, or those who say retarded things. You fit both categories, so I'm completely ok with my actions.; June 26, 2008 3:29 PM
Independent Voter said...: Beryl, "I hear you. GPAs are not standard. 4.0 GPAs (regular 4.0 scale) in CA for example are equivalent to 3.5 (or less) in CO.
I got scholarships based on my SAT and ACT scores (Math - 99 percentile). They told me that I would have gotten nothing if they relied on my Colorado GPA.

---

Although you are correct in most cases, however I have only taken 2 300 classes (of upper division - because those were required) and the rest have all been 400 or 500 classes. In addition, most of those have been honors classes which require a higher quantity and higher quality of work.

Most of my scholarships have come in through the "Honors Program" here on campus.

I do agree with you however that in certain aspects, the CA educational grading system is a bit skewed. I was a TA for one of my former professors last semester and his grading was a lot more liberal than mine was. He "reminded" me that the class I was a TA for was NOT an honors class....LOL.

Anyway, out of the five scholarships (ranging from $500-1500) I applied for last year, I received all but one. 3 were through the honors program and the other one was a Poli Sci Department scholarship. All of these scholarships too into account of more than just my GPA. They took into account how many "W's" were on one's transcripts (I have 2), essay (limited to a maximum of 500 words (which I feel is too limiting), professor recommendations, as well as several other things.; June 26, 2008 3:57 PM
RobH said...: Fellas, fellas, fellas;

Did too.
Did not.
Did too.
Did not.

Drop it already. You're polluting the thread.; June 26, 2008 4:01 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: I really love those who, in a discussion about the Constitution or Constitutional rights, bring up selected portions of the Declaration of Independence as part of their argument.

I'm addressing this to you, Mike, the poster who implied EVERY person who posts here is a pinko, an effete, a feminized organism, if they don't agree with you 100%.

The Declaration of Independence holds no legal sway in the courtroom. It was exactly what it says, a declaration of the independence of the 13 colonies from Great Britain. It is a document, but not a legal document in terms of what the law is, and whether the law is Constitutional or not.

The Constitution of the United States of America is the legal basis for the formation of the current government of the United States, and whether a law is or is not in accordance with the governing legal framework. The Constitution post-dated the Declaration by 12 years, with the Articles of Confederation the governing document and governing framework in the intermediary between the Declaration and the Constitution.

One clue to the lack of legal sway of the Declaration is that in the Preamble, it states "That all men are created equal".

If the Declaration held any importance in a legal sense, then the part of the Preamble stating "All men are created equal" would mean that the Constitution's allowing slaves, and counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, would be illegal. It was legal until the 13th and 15th Amendments were passed.

Don't bring up sections of the Declaration of Independence and declare them as holding legal sway in a court room as a basis for arguing a Constitutional case, unless you want to show how lacking of knowledge you are in history, law, and especially Constitutional law.

Now Mikie, why don't you go back to "The Free Republic" web site (a misnomer for a site if there ever was one), where you can talk trash with your fellow troglodyte misanthropes of the lunatic right fringe?

Mike; June 26, 2008 4:09 PM
Joshua said...: apissedant

When you repeat that you tutor premed students in Organic Chemistry, I don’t know the caliber of the school you attend. Perhaps things are different in your part of the country. By definition “premed” does not mean “dreaming of going to medical school in the future.” It means: “excels as a student, particularly in academics, and specifically the sciences.” I really cannot conceive of a “premed” student needing a tutor in Organic Chemistry. Premeds are typically the over-achieving A students that every other student finds obnoxious. In a class of 200 students with 3 premeds, you will typically find that those 3 are the top 3 in the class, not the ones needing a tutor.

Just like everything you post, I believe that it is a lie that you tutor any students, particularly premed students. And if so, why aren’t you one of them?; June 26, 2008 4:10 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Mike said...
In a class of 200 students with 3 premeds, you will typically find that those 3 are the top 3 in the class, not the ones needing a tutor.

The quote shows the absolute stupidity of the poster who wrote it. The best students in a class are just as apt to have tutoring as anyone else in a class. In fact, sometimes more. The tutoring they received may, in fact, be one of the reasons they are the top of the class, not 15th or 25th.

Mike; June 26, 2008 4:17 PM
Joshua said...: apissedant

Here is my first post last night. Here is what you called me immediately, “Read a history book about the revolution. ”

Your arrogance is amazing. You, a student, are telling me to read a history book.; June 26, 2008 4:20 PM
Joshua said...: Mike in MD

When I was in college, I too was a tutor. I was a freshman and I got paid by the school to tutor other freshmen in Mathematics. In medical school I was again asked to tutor certain students who arrived at medical school ill-prepared. Never in my life have I ever tutored anyone who was good in the subject. Perhaps you misunderstand what tutoring means. It is a format aid to students having trouble understanding the teacher. And instead of holding back the entire class, those students are assigned tutors. It is not the informal co-studying of students helping each other.

Mike in MD, it will do you no good to start by first insulting me, then later you, like apis, will complain about my tone.; June 26, 2008 4:31 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
I don't know where you get your statistics, and I find them very amusing. One of the students that called me at least once a week has already been accepted to med school, has a full ride to the University, and has a 4.0. As Mike in Md said, smart people get tutored too. Did you realize that the average veterinary medicine school has higher standards than the average medical school? Did you realize that at Michigan State University, the students that cannot gain acceptance to the vet school typically end up entering the medical school?

If medical students are so smart, why do they have teachers? They still have to be taught too, why you have this crazy idea that medical students instantly understand everything and need no assistance is insane.

If medical students are so smart, why do we typically let lawyers run our country?

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx

Here is a composite of IQ scores for various professions, many professions have many people just as smart or smarter than doctors. Some people choose professions because they enjoy it and because they're good at it, not just because it pays well.

Someone has to invent the drugs you prescribe, and typically, that is not the job of a medical doctor, but of an actual scientist. Someone has to teach students of these various professions, and intelligent teachers is important to having intelligent workers. These teachers are typically not medical doctors.

I don't enjoy the practice of medicine, and so I choose another profession. Because I have not chosen to be a medical doctor does not make me by default dumber than you. This is again improper black and white thinking.; June 26, 2008 4:38 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
Please buy a dictionary. Tutor has many definitions, one of which is: to act as a tutor to; teach or instruct, esp. privately.

Mike in Md,
When we're not squabbling over a stupid misunderstanding, we agree on almost everything. Kind of funny really.; June 26, 2008 4:42 PM
Joshua said...: apissedant

You said I don't mind attacking those who attack me, or those who say retarded things.

The Supreme Court this morning vindicated my position while your position was found unconstitutional, but I am the one saying retarded things? You will never learn. Even when the Supreme Court weighs in against your loony communistic ideas, you still think that you are correct and the rest of America is wrong.; June 26, 2008 4:45 PM
Joshua said...: apissedant

You are pathetic. I catch you in a lie after lie. Now you want to go to the dictionary for the meaning of a tutor? When you are tutoring these premed students, exactly, tell me what you mean. Are you or are you not getting paid for privately explaining to these “slow” students, things that they missed in class? Yes or no.

I doubt that you are in an institution of higher learning. You may, however, be in some kind of institution.; June 26, 2008 4:52 PM
apissedant said...: Why is it arrogant to ask someone who is so obviously misinformed to read a history book? Why must a status as a student (and a laboratory instructor), make me unqualified to educate another? That is actually kind of funny, to say someone employed in the act of teaching is unqualified to teach.

My students in my lab have occasionally correct me when I was wrong on something, and I have occasionally corrected my professors when they were wrong. To assume that having a medical degree makes you more qualified than anyone who does not on all subjects, ranging from history to medicine, is pretty close to the definition of arrogance. To assert that the smartest students at any school are all premed students is pretty close the definition of medicine.

Do I think I know more about history than you do? MOST DEFINITELY. Do I think I know more about medicine than you do? I sure hope I don't. You assume your medical degree makes you an expert on everything. I just pointed out your historical inaccuracy, based on the account of countless historians, 220 years of American leaders, and the writings of the actual founding fathers. Why is it arrogant to tell someone they're wrong when you know they're wrong?

You wrote this:
"That is, the people need to properly regulate its militia to make sure that it serves the people and not a tyrannical government. The people need to keep and bear arms to keep the militia in check.

It would seem absurd to me for the Constitution to state that the militia needs to keep and bear guns. This is what a militia does. The Constitution is merely stating that the people need to keep and bear their own guns to prevent government goons from running amok."

Read 1776, the Federalist Papers, the formal correspondence from George Washington During the war, or anything else. You will find that what you said was historically unfounded and silly. The militia DID NOT have arms. The people had arms, and the people were the militia. The militia were state, not federal. The federal version is called Army or Navy, which was not mentioned in the amendment at all. There were serious problems of people reporting to militia duty and not having a weapon. Militia duty was required by almost all adult men. All of these facts contradict you.; June 26, 2008 4:53 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
I have not lied at all. These students were my friends, and I would go on weekends and after class to help them. I also worked as a tutor in the laboratory, which is a paid position. So the answer to your question, with the exception of, "slow" students, is yes. I did some tutoring for free, and I did some for pay. Both are still tutoring, regardless of whether there is pay involved or not. Again, buy a dictionary. There is no lie. First, tutoring does not require pay. Second, I was in fact in a paid, official University job. So where is the lie? You keep exposing my, "lies" without actually finding a single lie. I wonder how your simple little head works.; June 26, 2008 4:56 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
The supreme court has weighed in for 220 years, this is the first day your position was ever taken. Not only that, but they didn't take your position. They never once stated that it was to protect against the militia. So A, you're wrong, B, you're wrong, C you're wrong. That is all.

Anyways all, I'm off to turn Virginia blue, enjoy your night.; June 26, 2008 4:57 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
Before you attempt to call me a liar again... I'll explain in retarded detail so you cannot. My first official job at the university was assisting students in a lab, not instructing the lab. I was hired to tutor them on Organic Chemistry and using the equipment. I was then hired to actually teach a separate lab. So, I did in fact teach a lab, as well as tutor students within the lab while another person was teaching the lab. I also tutored students individually, though I did that out of the kindness of my heart, and not for money (with the exception of office hours which I am paid for). Nursing students, business majors, medical students, chemistry majors, and biochemistry majors have all asked me for help and tutoring. Most even offered pay, though I never accepted it. I didn't feel right accepting income from tutoring while also accepting income from teaching a class.

I, despite being smart and occasionally tutoring others, have also myself asked others for help. Sometimes there are things I don't understand, and I am more than willing to admit my shortcomings in an attempt to amend them. I don't know why you cannot do the same.; June 26, 2008 5:03 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Mike said...
The Supreme Court this morning vindicated my position while your position was found unconstitutional, but I am the one saying retarded things? You will never learn. Even when the Supreme Court weighs in against your loony communistic ideas, you still think that you are correct and the rest of America is wrong.

Sometimes the Supreme Court makes a decision that is later changed by the court itself (Plessy v. Ferguson, for example), or is changed by Constitutional Amendment (Dred Scott v. Sandford).

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter only until it decides to change it's own ruling, or until the ruling is changed by some other force. And, like Plessy, that other force can be changing society mores, or a changed makeup of the Court.

Mike; June 26, 2008 5:09 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
If you are going to reject the definitions that I literally copied and pasted directly from the dictionary, then you should at least be so kind as to publish your own dictionary. Every word I have used has been completely appropriate and correct, with the exception of the few times where I admitted my mistake, as with Dave yesterday when I asserted something less than factually infallible. I am sorry Webster didn't consult you before deciding what words meant.; June 26, 2008 5:13 PM
Joshua said...: apissedant

When you start a gunfight, it makes no sense to be disarmed. You stated “The supreme court has weighed in for 220 years, this is the first day your position was ever taken.”

To the contrary, the Supreme Court has never explained the 2nd Amendment till today. If not individual right to bear arms as distinct from a collective right as part of a militia, then what is the point of your ridiculous posts the last 24 hours?

If you start a gunfight, arm yourself.; June 26, 2008 5:15 PM
apissedant said...: Mike in Md,
I 100% agree. That is the neat thing about the law in general, and the Constitution specifically. Many of the items are written rather generally to allow multiple interpretations when the times and society change. It is also littered with clauses allowing for changes when changing the interpretation is too blatantly false.

Mike's original post said that there was no ambiguity at all, which was the part I found so ridiculous. How did 4 of the greatest minds in the country dissent if there was no ambiguity? How come it took our court 220 years to come to this conclusion if there was no ambiguity?; June 26, 2008 5:19 PM
Joshua said...: apissedant

You bragged about tutoring premed students. I called you on it and now you want to rely on a dictionary definition of tutor? How Clintonesque of you.

Look, if you said: “I am a man.” When challenged are you going to resort to your dictionary to tell me what a man is?

You are a silly little communist liar.; June 26, 2008 5:20 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
The supreme court has weighed in on this before. You obviously did not actually read the opinion. It refers to a case from the 1930s as a precedent for the dissenting opinion.

Apparently you brought a gun without bullets, you must live in D.C.

They also make a decision every time they refuse to hear an appeal and allow the opinion of the lower court to stand and act as a precedent for future cases. You do actually know how to read, right? The overview of the opinion and most articles have referenced the previous decisions.; June 26, 2008 5:23 PM
apissedant said...: I would also remind you that the second amendment was written by James Madison, and that John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I posted what was written in the Federalist Papers, which these two men contributed to, and the actual Federalist Paper in question was written by James Madison. Though the Federalist Papers are not law, they have been referenced by the SC many many times, as a way to point to what the founders actually intended when writing the Constitution. Look it up, it definitely talks about militia and militia duty. It never mentions self protection or hunting.

Ok, really off to the headquarters now... peace all.; June 26, 2008 5:30 PM
Joshua said...: apissedant

“How did 4 of the greatest minds in the country dissent if there was no ambiguity?”

Their dissent was not in the meaning of the 27 simple words that make up the short sentence of the 2nd Amendment. It was simply that their communist-mindset, similar to yours, cannot understand that America is the land of the free and brave. You want nanny government to put you in a cocoon.; June 26, 2008 5:31 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "The Supreme Court is the final arbiter only until it decides to change it's own ruling,.."

What a nonsense, again!

As I said last night, SC clearly said what it should say.

After about 220 years, we have clarity. As per Gallup, 73% of Americans believe they have the right to bear arms as per the 2nd Amendment, which the SC agreed today.

Why can't these bleeding liberal yappers just accept the reality and move on?

No, Bleeding Liberals will not quit their nonsense!!
___________________________

Indy:

Good job on your high GPA. I commend you.

But, still you ARE on Govt handout, whether $500 or more. For your big potty mouth, you should get some summer job and pay tax!

You seem to be a pain and a parasite on your Partner! Poor Guy.

On those scholarship you live on:
Most of that got exempted from Fed/State Tax. Therefore you ARE getting a Fed handout!

Whenever you are on Govt handout, remember, you ARE asking your neighbor to pay for your lunch! Is that okay for your bloated ego?

My kids get loans at 6.8% interest to pay for their education, and they work 40 h/wk during summer! That's what's called personal responsibility, which many of the Bleeding Liberals don't have!! They want Big Govt that picks the pockets of hard working highly productive citizens.

Watch BHO. He is waiting in the wings to confiscate the money, guns and our liberty from hard working lawful citizens. A Big Govt Big Spender.

Go, get a Summer Job, Indy, if can for your "Soft Major" you have!lol.

Stay tuned.; June 26, 2008 5:48 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Open Thread Electoral Vote Contest

The closer the election is the easier to guess the winning number will be.
So we will have a cut off date for number submissions of July 13th 11:59pm Texas time.
Duplicate number guesses will be allowed since there are only so many combinations available.
A total of 270 EVs are needed for a clear cut win - 269 would go to the House for a vote.
The list reflects the number of EVs for Obama (vs. McCain).

Submissions so far:
stop0 - < 251 (McCain 350+)
JayW - 269
Beryl - 280
Hippolytus - 289
Dilbuck - 290
softspoken22 - 298
Emma - 300
Richard - 304
jean - 311
Mike in Maryland - 312
tmess2 - 315
RobH - 317 (1)
apissedant - 317 (2)
Oregon Dem - 332
Leah - 345
Woodland Sprite - 360
Emit R Detsaw - 429
Independent voter - 538

Anyone that submits an early guess will be allowed to add (but not change) a second guess October 1st - 3rd. The early guess will be our main contest. The second guess will be considered a separate contest.; June 26, 2008 5:55 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: I think those you misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment just eat crow and move on.

Hoping it will be over turned in some future date is just a futile nonsense.

The language was crystal clear: BOTH the state militia AND the people have the RIGHT to bear fire arms, period.

But local jurisdictions may regulate or control, but NEVER totally ban the fire arms.

Move on, Folks.; June 26, 2008 5:56 PM
suzihussein22 said...: I don't see how Obama's comments are always a flip flop. Going by memory(scary), I remeber him saying that issues of gun control should be left up to the states. How is that a flip flop to this?-

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/06/mccain_conf_call_blasts_obama.html

Anybody else notice the petition on Lieberman? What did Gore see in him?; June 26, 2008 6:03 PM
Independent Voter said...: stopobamanow/yamaka=mccain=dolt=village idiot=MIA=weak on politics,

You seem to be a pain and a parasite on your Partner! Poor Guy.

You are too funny you dolt! You have ZERO clue as to my relationship with my partner. I worked and supported the household while he went through his schooling. It was upon my losing a job due to YOUR hero's FAILED POLICY - NAFTA - that I even decided to go back to school.

Most of that got exempted from Fed/State Tax. Therefore you ARE getting a Fed handout!

In the words of your second hero Dick Cheney, so. This is true with MOST scholarships.

My kids get loans at 6.8% interest to pay for their education, and they work 40 h/wk during summer! That's what's called personal responsibility, which many of the Bleeding Liberals don't have!! They want Big Govt that picks the pockets of hard working highly productive citizens.

Good for them. I hope they look forward to the HUGE amounts of debt that they will be in for at least 10-15 years after they graduate. It's a shame that they are too stupid to write an essay good enough or fail to get the recommendations from their professors to receive ANY scholarships. Of course, knowing the DOLT they have for a father, I'm NOT surprised.

By the way, your dolt kids too are taking government handouts. How else did they qualify for the government subsidized and unsubsidized loans for which the interest is tax deductible?

It is MY hard work that has gotten me the scholarships that I receive.

Goodbye stopobamanow/yamaka=mccain=dolt=village idiot=MIA=weak on politics; June 26, 2008 6:17 PM
suzihussein22 said...: i v-Good point about the student loans. They are a type of government "handout" no matter how some Pennsters try to define them. My husband is also starting to win scholarships and a work study grant. He had been working part time at minimum wage in the photo dep. of the college even though he's considered a professional photographer. You do what you gotta do. Just keep ignoring the elitist comments of some posters.; June 26, 2008 6:26 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Yapper Indy:

"It is MY hard work that has gotten me the scholarships that I receive."

How come you don't find a Summer Job?
----------------

1. BHO has flip-flopped on NAFTA. So don't vote for him!

2. Unsubsidized loans have no Govt subsidy.

3. I write letters of recommendation for the Summer Trainee Students I have in my Company.

4. Instead of yapping/blogging on this site all day every day, go get a job and pay tax.

5. All most all College Grads start their life with loans. Then they find good jobs, work hard, save and pay off the loans ASAP. After that, they build their wealth one dollar at a time! Not waiting for Govt handout!

Be a person of personal responsibility, which many of the Bleeding Liberals don't have!

Personal freedom comes with personal responsibility! Do you understand it? CAN you?

Stop BHO. He is Carter II = Big Spender of Big Govt.

Stay tuned. See you late night!; June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Independent Voter said...: ss - ya I know, every now and then I have to respond to the BS claims our village idiot (pathetic dolt) spews. I'm still trying to figure out if his real village is missing him or if they purposely sent him over here.; June 26, 2008 6:36 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This thread is going down hill fast.

Can everyone get back to talking politics and the issues :)

And please don't forget what it says at the top of this page ---> "And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil."

Obama '08; June 26, 2008 6:45 PM
Independent Voter said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 26, 2008 6:50 PM
Independent Voter said...: stopobamanow/yamaka=mccain=PATHETIC DOLT=village idiot=MIA=weak on politics,

Unsubsidized loans have no Govt subsidy.

They are STILL GUARANTEED loans from the government. Which is guaranteed by TAX PAYER money until they are paid back. And the INTEREST is TAX DEDUCTIBLE - therefore is being SUBSIDIZED by the ordinary TAX PAYER! Come on you pathetic DOLT, wake up! You claim to be this intelligent individual, but obviously your kids take after you since they are TOO STUPID to get any scholarships! Boy do I pity them.

How come you don't find a Summer Job?

Because I'm taking 6 classes over the summer. If your kids were smart, they would take summer classes and get scholarships to help them pay for their college and work part-time they would indeed be able to graduate early, like p'd ant and I are doing, without having so much debt when they finish.

4. Instead of yapping/blogging on this site all day every day, go get a job and pay tax.

Um, I blogged EARLY this morning and then started again about an hour ago. how is that "all day every day"? My partner and I DO pay taxes. It is called shared household income. Hmmmmm, I wonder if you suggest the same thing to the wife or husband of someone who is working while the other goes to school. I doubt it. The only reason you are saying it to me is because you are a PATHETIC DOLT! How many married couples have one spouse working and the other in school who does not work? THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS! I suggest you butt out of other people's relationships.; June 26, 2008 6:52 PM
suzihussein22 said...: He won't be taking any 3 a.m. calls on the weekend-

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/26/become-president-without-campaigning-on-weekends/

When we have another disaster besides the flooding ongoing now, it better be during office time with him. Oh yeah, he toured the flooding, but it was Obama that helped fill sandbags.; June 26, 2008 6:54 PM
Independent Voter said...: RUT ROW! McCain could be in HUGE trouble with this one: http://tiny.cc/yVjkX

U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., will visit Mexico and Colombia next week to discuss trade, security and energy issues.

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, will be in Cartagena, Colombia, on July 1 and 2 and in Mexico City on July 3.

The senator backs free trade, including the North American Free trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada and a proposed U.S. accord with Colombia. He contends free trade policies open up markets for U.S. goods.

Democratic presidential rival U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has talked about reworking trade deals and rethinking free trade policies, worrying about U.S. job losses.; June 26, 2008 7:06 PM
jean said...: Independant,
First it was mike and apissedant and now with you and stop.
You are busting your butt with 6 classes (are you insane????????) and I think that is why you had a lapse in judgement in responding to
the PATHETIC DOLT.
You have got to be tired with that workload and obviously need a nice dinner with your special person and a nice cool cocktail.
That makes my day every time.
6 classes during the Summer?
We have to talk before you make this choice again;); June 26, 2008 7:11 PM
Independent Voter said...: jean, LOL!

Ya, I'm currently in 4 classes. The two of them are condensed into 6 weeks which end on July 9th, the other two (that I'm currently taking) are 8 week courses that just started up last week. And the last two will be 6 week classes that start July 14th.; June 26, 2008 7:16 PM
Independent Voter said...: Jean, but ya, we are going to take a short getaway next weekend (4th of July weekend.); June 26, 2008 7:16 PM
jean said...: Independant,
You know that if Stops kids have any of his genetic structure that it is impossible for them to handle 6 classes ANYTIME.
We can only prey that they take after their mother or are adopted or pulled on a gene pool WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY BACK.
:) jean; June 26, 2008 7:18 PM
jean said...: Those condensed classes are equal to 6 classes.
A little type A personality are we
LOL.
jean; June 26, 2008 7:21 PM
Independent Voter said...: Jean, LOL! The fall semester I took 6 classes but they were the full 16 weeks. That was a little tough because of when my finals and midterms fell. I only had to go for finals on 2 days because of the schedule I had taken on.

By taking these 6 classes over the summer I will only need to take 3 classes and one of those will actually be my internship. I have an appointment with the Political Science Chair next week to determine what does and does not qualify as an applicable internship to the major.; June 26, 2008 7:28 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Here's a nice random poll that doesn't have anything to do with AOL or Rasmussen :)-

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5251203; June 26, 2008 7:38 PM
jean said...: Independant,
There is no question about your work ethic.
My work is slow right now and I have decided the most best thing to do is spend time with kids and do the Mom thing. Boy I'm having fun.
I work from home now (bought a bunch of stuff)and my boss has been great. After 10years with the company he said it is about time.
I know you are in a hurry, ENJOY
your July 4th getaway.
Life is short.
There is no doubt in your mind that Stop is one miserable person.
His fault.
jean; June 26, 2008 7:38 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "How many married couples have one spouse working and the other in school who does not work? THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS!"

Are you BOYs legally married? Now CA allows it. But, it will be revoked after Nov 2008!!!

Merit Scholarships ARE NOT given to undergrads in TOP TIER Universities like Stanford or Columbia or UT Austin. Because almost ALL students admitted ARE very meritorious, unlike at your School.

Only pedestrian third tier schools do. Try to go to Stanford, you moron will know the total truth. Or get admitted to Med School to know what's happening there.

There, depending on the FAFSA and CSS Profile, students are given Need-Based Grants, loans and work-study grants.

My kids CANNOT qualify for Need-Based grants, because my family is highly productive, unlike yours!

Therefore, they MUST work during Summer to pay for the "Self-Help" portion of the Total Bill.

Once they graduate as Engineer/Doctor, they will pay the loan off very easily, unlike you the "Softies", who can't find any job anytime soon!

Do you understand now, the yapper?
Get legally married! Stop living on Govt handouts! Get a job and pay FICA tax at least.
_____________________________

Gallup reports a 44% tie between BHO and McCain.

This is when Dubya is 28% and Pelosi/Reid Congress is 18%.

McCain is NOT McSame!

As a Commander-in-Chief, 80% of Americans favor McCain.

This is reflected in the AOL Straw Poll, where nearly 315 k have voted.

Stay tuned.; June 26, 2008 7:44 PM
Independent Voter said...: ss - that is too funny.

----

Jean, Good for you on being able to spend more time with the kids. That's great.

We are planning on going to Palm Springs :) It's too hot for my taste but we will be spending lots of time at the pool during the day and the bar by night :) I don't drink much though - I'm a "cheap date" that way ;c); June 26, 2008 7:50 PM
jean said...: Independant,
Coyote Bar & Grill in Palm Springs.
Good food nice Bar.
Nice fire pits outside.
It does get cool at night in the desert.
No, I have never been there in my life.
jean; June 26, 2008 7:55 PM
Independent Voter said...: LOL Jean, never been there huh? UH HUH! LOL!!!!!!

We like Sidewinder though. We'll check out Coyote for dinner, but go to Sidewinder for dancing! ;c); June 26, 2008 8:00 PM
jean said...: Independant,
Full misters outside during the day.
Sorry I forgot.; June 26, 2008 8:00 PM
Independent Voter said...: But you've never been there huh? LOL; June 26, 2008 8:02 PM
jean said...: NOPE and I'm sticking to it:); June 26, 2008 8:05 PM
jean said...: Sorry fixing dinner.
Well, maybe the daughter who plays basketball always has a tournament there every summer and perhaps we own a Timeshare there.
Other than that. No.; June 26, 2008 8:09 PM
Independent Voter said...: Jean..........LMAO!!!!!!!

;c); June 26, 2008 8:10 PM
jean said...: Ok, I told you I was fixing dinner.

There is a chance that there is a Blue in front of Coyote Bar & Grill.
I don't remember if that is in Carlsbad or Palm Springs.

I don't get out much anymore.
I was going to say that Stop is just pathetic but I scrolled down and I see you already covered that.
Talk to ya soon.
Dinner and practices awaiting;); June 26, 2008 8:55 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Stop/Yammerer needs to be deleted after the way that MALE posted. Homophobic is a nice way of putting it.; June 26, 2008 8:58 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Merit Scholarships ARE NOT given to undergrads in TOP TIER Universities like Stanford or Columbia or UT Austin.

It would be really nice if some people at least acted like they knew of what they speak, or did just a small amount of research.

From the University of Texas web site (took me just a few seconds to find it):
"The University of Texas at Austin through the Office of Student Financial Services offers a number of competitive merit-based and need-based scholarships and need-based work-study programs to entering students. All Plan II applicants should apply. These scholarships, awarded primarily on a financial need-basis, range from $1,000 to $4,000."

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/progs/plan2/applicants/financial_aid/

It is a pathetic idiot who said UT doesn't offer merit scholarships.

Keep it up, Idiot. Every post you place here just reinforces everyone's KNOWLEDGE that your elevator doesn't go anywhere near the top floor.

Mike; June 26, 2008 8:59 PM
RobH said...: The VERY big deal to come out of the "Obama pays Clinton debt" announcement tonight is that this absoluteley ends any possibility of "convention discord" at Denver.; June 26, 2008 9:08 PM
Independent Voter said...: Mike, I had checked UT of Austin, and found the same thing, but I promised Leah that he was on permanent ignore, hence the reason I didn't respond to the dolt. :); June 26, 2008 9:12 PM
jean said...: robh,
Where is this announcement?
Went to CNN couldn't find it.
Been busy.
jean; June 26, 2008 9:15 PM
RobH said...: Yuu have got to get your eyes on the footage out jus tonight (I just saw it on CNN) of John McCain taking questions (toniht) from a pair of fourth graders. These kids could barely read the questions (actually they looked younger thant 4th) and he used spoke so far above their heads it was BREATHTAKING.

Not only that, he couldn't really hear their questions, because they spoke in such low voices; even though they were sitting in a circle he had to repeatedly lean forward, and say "waats 'at? - like yer' old deaf Grampa. Priceless!

It was fr*****g hilarious. Keep shcking Youtube tonight
to see when it shows up.

Seriously...; June 26, 2008 9:18 PM
RobH said...: Jean,

I saw it on MSNBC, in the intro to Dan Abrams's show, Verdict, two seconds past the end of Countdown, at 9PM EST.; June 26, 2008 9:21 PM
RobH said...: I'll repeat myself,

the footage of McCain tonight is as good as the jpg of him hugging Bush, and maybe even as revealing as Bosnia-gate. The Grandad moments are devastatingly funny, and watching him try struggle with trying to simplify his answers, and failing, is the best.

Have fun. I'll post a link if I find one.; June 26, 2008 9:24 PM
jean said...: robh,
Thanks.
Now I'm really late:)I,m supposed to be somewhere else.
jean; June 26, 2008 9:30 PM
suzihussein22 said...: OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA; June 26, 2008 9:35 PM
Independent Voter said...: NICE ONE SS - Leah is going to be proud of you too!; June 26, 2008 9:36 PM
suzihussein22 said...: I almost let my yogurt melt to catch that for you, Leah!; June 26, 2008 9:36 PM
jean said...: Soft nice job:)
jean
It says on CNN that Obama just contributed the max to Clintons campaign.; June 26, 2008 9:38 PM
Independent Voter said...: LOL ss - ALMOST - LOL; June 26, 2008 9:38 PM
suzihussein22 said...: i v-Hey, it was chocolate. :D; June 26, 2008 9:45 PM
Independent Voter said...: LOL ss; June 26, 2008 9:47 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: McCain Quotes...

"That's not too important. What's important is the casualties." --on when U.S. troops will return from Iraq, "Today," NBC, June 11, 2008

"I will veto every single beer, um, bill with earmarks." --speaking at the National Small Business Summit, Washington, D.C., June 10, 2008

"We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies." --Kenner, Louisiana, June 3, 2008

"Make it a hundred...That would be fine with me." -to a questioner who asked if he supported President Bush's vision for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for 50 years

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

"Well, it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That's well known. And it's unfortunate." -before correcting himself by saying Iran was training "extremists," not Al Qaeda

"I will conduct a respectful debate. Now, it will be dispirited -- it will be spirited -- because there are stark differences. I am a proud conservative, liberal Republica-- conservative Republican...Hello? Easy there."

"I am a illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get." -after being asked whether us uses a Mac or a PC

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book."

"There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today." --prior to visiting a Baghdad market while being flanked by 22 soldiers, 10 armored Humvees, and two Apache attack helicopters

"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

"Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be. We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." --on the Iraq war

"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

"We're going to prevail and we will win and it'll be one of the best things that's happened to America and the world in a long time 'cause it'll reverberate throughout the Middle East." --on the Iraq war, "Meet the Press" interview, 3/3/03

OBAMA '08
.; June 26, 2008 9:49 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: ss - Good job!

Okay, Obama cut a personal check of $2,300 for Hillary's debt. And he will help fund raise for her... but he is NOT giving her any of his money he has gotten via donations - thank GOD ;)
Besides that is against the rules/law.

I really think the media should cool it on how they are talking about Hillary's debt and how Obama should be helping her. It was Hillary's decision to go in the hole by spending that money to bash Obama - she should have quit earlier when she run out of money.

Obama '08; June 26, 2008 9:53 PM
Beryl said...: Leah wrote:
"I really think the media should cool it on how they are talking about Hillary's debt and how Obama should be helping her. It was Hillary's decision to go in the hole by spending that money to bash Obama - she should have quit earlier when she run out of money."

I agree. They are only highlighting that.

1. She didn't show fiscal responsibility by going into debt that way.
2. She is now looking for someone to bail her out because she had no other plan.

Suze Orman responsible women like myself are smart with out money and don't need some man to clean up our financial messes.; June 26, 2008 10:01 PM
suzihussein22 said...: issue-VP-

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/pelosi_backing_edwards_for_vic.html

Which Edwards, you might ask?; June 26, 2008 10:03 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Roach and Indy:

The crux of my post was only pedestrian colleges give generous "merit scholarships"; top Tiers like Columbia (where my daughter attended) or UT Austin Engineering (where my son is attending) do NOT normally give. They give only the NEED Based help depending on your family income. My kids could not get any help because we ARE very productive: We have to pay the "Family Contribution" and the kid has to pay "Self Help" (which has summer income, loan and work-study grant). On an average undergrads have $15K loan after 4 years in College. They pay it off once they go to work.

But "Soft Majors" cannot find any job these days. They are stuck with the loans!

Since you say you checked Austin, why didn't you check Stanford, Columbia and other TOP Tier schools I mentioned?

I know the reason:

You both ARE a 3rd Tier individuals knowing only about the pedestrian schools!

Are you so angry about the SC Ruling on the 2nd Amendment? The language is very clear. You two have serious understanding problem. Not only the language but also the context.

2nd Amendment can NEVER be repealed, period.

But, fire arm control/regulation is possible - not a total ban.

Eat crow, and grow up.

BHO also needs a good reading of the Constitution.

He is risky and dangerous.

BHO = Inexperienced = Risky.

BHO = Carter II.

p.s. The Gallup poll says 80% of Americans favor McCain as the Commander-In-Chief. AOL Straw poll reflects it.

Stay tuned.; June 26, 2008 10:21 PM
Independent Voter said...: ss- Here is Chet Edwards' voting record

I personally don't think I could support him. Yes, I would still vote for Obama, but not as enthusiastically as I would with a slightly more pro-civil rights candidate.; June 26, 2008 10:26 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Folks, the ayes and ears have it-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7474836.stm; June 26, 2008 10:26 PM
suzihussein22 said...: i v-I see what you mean. I also took that voter match quiz again. Now I'm a moderate populist who leans towards J. Edwards. I had been leaning towards Thompson. Does that mean I'm "progressing?"; June 26, 2008 10:40 PM
Independent Voter said...: LOL ss - Thompson? ROFL! I would definitely have to say you are "progressing".

When I took one of those quizzes early on, I was aligned with Dennis Kuccinich. LOL!; June 26, 2008 10:53 PM
suzihussein22 said...: This goes hand in hand with what was being posted recently-

http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2249; June 26, 2008 11:08 PM
billyjay66 said...: leah

good collection of quotes

A couple I like are:

"I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels." (but we haven't)

“I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East, that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,”(Sooo..... it is about oil?)

And the of course going "George Carlin" on his wife with on of the seven forbidden words!!!; June 26, 2008 11:22 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "It was Hillary's decision to go in the hole by spending that money to bash Obama - she should have quit earlier when she run out of money."

Wrong. I disagree.

From March onwards, she won more Primary States than the Junior.

She got more than 18 million votes, the most for any primary any time in our history. To achieve this, she needed to spend money. That too against the BigMoneyMachine, who spent 3:1 against her and lost in most of them.

Here is what I want Hillary to do:

1. She should NOT take any active role in BHO's Campaign. Maybe, one or two joint appearances, that's it. Let him go to the polls on his own; if he wins, fine; if not, she can fire up her base for 2012.

2. She has to focus on writing a passionate book on

"The Way to Nomination: Why I lost it. The Grim Story of Sexism and Black Racism in America.

Sub-title: The Hypocrisy of Liberals in the Democratic Party: What did RBC/SDs do in May 2008?"

She must work very hard on it, and get it published by October 2008, three weeks before the Election.

She will sell several million copies, and she will change the Election to her favor, whatever that is. Her money problems will be solved.

This is the way to teach the Far Left Liberal Wing of the Party a good lesson.

Not pandering to them.

Hello Hillary, Are you listening?

_________________________________

Roach: What say you? I am sure you have some two cents to say on everything in the world!

Stay tuned.; June 26, 2008 11:22 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Arnold baby isn't pumpin' up McCain and he sure is drillin' him-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/26/schwarzenegger-mccain-blo_n_109451.html

You can really see an age/physical difference in a picture like this. McCain could at least quit the combover.; June 26, 2008 11:31 PM
Hillary Clinton said...: Stop: Hello Hillary, Are you listening?

Yes sweetie, I'm right here. I'm always here. I'm like a bad penny that just keeps turning up over and over again. I'll always be here.

In fact, as you know, I did not end my campaign - I merely suspended it. My advisors have been using this time to trick Obama supporters into helping me pay off my debt. As you can see from this evening's news cycle, it's working!! Right now we're using the poor, poor 'lil 'ol lady strategy so folks will crack open their checkbooks.

Then, once my debt is eliminated (and I get back the $12 million I kicked in from my own pocket book), we plan to unveil our new and improved campaign slogan that'll carry us through to the November election: "4 More Years! 4 More Years!"

I will never give up, never surrender, and never throw that low down, two-timing, cheatin' husband of mine out of my life.

Thanks Yams....er, I mean STOP...for sticking with me all the way to November!!

Fondest Regards,
Your BFF Hillary; June 26, 2008 11:39 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: From FoxNews online:

Clinton’s debt includes $12 million of her own money. She has said she is not asking for help paying that back.
_________________

Btw, the General Election Tracker will be updated SATURDAY night.

Goodnight everyone :); June 26, 2008 11:48 PM
Independent Voter said...: Goodnight Leah.; June 26, 2008 11:50 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Imitation Hillary:

It was good. Really, good!
_____________________________

Folks, some interesting Gallup survey: (gallup.com)

Americans' Confidence Level:

Only 12% for Pelosi/Reid's Congress, the lowest ever recorded.

Only 26% for the Presidency itself.
Only 32% for the US Supreme Court.
But 71% for the US Military, this is the highest ever recorded.

And, McCain gets 80% as the Commander-in-Chief!

BHO is not in the picture at all.

With all that Mega Money, the Sweet Grin, Silver-tongue rhetorical eloquence, and the Liberal MSM Spin, the Junior is no where to be seen!

Stay tuned.; June 26, 2008 11:50 PM
apissedant said...: Leah and Robh,
I apologize for allowing the conversation to drift away from actual policy and into debates over facts and words. I also apologize for my portion of the mean spirited statements that are not what this forum is supposed to be about. I still believe everything I said, but this should not be the place to vent it. Sometimes I can't help myself. In that spirit, I will give one last very small jab before I discontinue this conversation and work very hard to avoid having it again. I will disregard and ignore many other things I wanted to say, and just finish with a small jab with little bite and no mean names.

Mike,
I apologize for relying on actual definitions of words instead of just making them us as I go along. I realize that that is terribly elitist and liberal of me. I also apologize for not just allowing my statement to end at the fact that I do actually meet your definition (which I did most certainly state with the exception of your requirement that the person be stupid or slow), and went further into informing you that your definition was actually the incorrect definition. I also apologize for misspelling a word that I have used in this blog about a dozen times in total, and spelled correctly every other time. This mistake is unforgivable.; June 26, 2008 11:52 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1401 – 1600 of 4188 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

4188 comments:

Tags