Anyone notice "Osama" sounds like "Obama" ?

[Mr._johngalt]

Okay, so I spent about an hour "skimming" this guy's book
("The Audacity of Hope" - terrible title). I'd have to say he writes
pretty good. Much better than Nords, but that is faint praise indeed.

Obama is a liberal Democrat in The Senate. That is really all I need to know.

JG

 

[Nords]

Much better than Nords, but that is faint praise indeed.

A lot of people write better than I do, but I don't have my spouse logged into my computer to do it for me...

 

[Mr._johngalt]

A lot of people write better than I do, but I don't have my spouse logged into my computer to do it for me...

Well I guess I solved that problem.

JG

 

[uncledrz]

BTW, my "dream team" to run would be Clarence Thomas and Ann
Coulter.

JG

That's quite an interesting combination. A conservative jurist saddled with a money lusting, liar who has advocated the killing of a member of Congress ("they should frag Murtha"--or something similar, if that's not exact), among her other qualifications.
The Republican party doesn't seem to be able to discern the difference.

Tio z

 

[Mr._johngalt]

That's quite an interesting combination. A conservative jurist saddled with a money lusting, liar who has advocated the killing of a member of Congress ("they should frag Murtha"--or something similar, if that's not exact), among her other qualifications.
The Republican party doesn't seem to be able to discern the difference.

Tio z

Well, it's hyperbolic of course, but not really all that far off what would
(could?) get me interested again.

JG

 

[donheff]

Charles Krauthammer (neo-con Washington Post columnist) writes in today's Post that he believes Obama should run in 2008. This is not a tongue-in-cheek suggestion. He believes Obama would indelibly imprint himself in the national consciousness and set himself up as a future front-runner if 08' didn't pan out. Interestingly Krauthammer believes the majority of Americans (conservative as well as liberal) would like to see an African American President. I think he is right about that. It would be a huge symbolic step in overcoming our history.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Charles Krauthammer (neo-con Washington Post columnist) Interestingly Krauthammer believes the majority of Americans (conservative as well as liberal) would like to see an African American President. I think he is right about that. It would be a huge symbolic step in overcoming our history.

You forgot the smiley.

jg

 

[azanon]

Partly. I see the guy as a far left socialist nut case. It's not racial.
I would vote for a goldang Martian if he (she?) was ultra-
conservative. I think bleeding heart libs are lower than pond scum
(except for Martha of course).

BTW, my "dream team" to run would be Clarence Thomas and Ann
Coulter.

JG

Not to stray too much, but JG, i'm curious what isn't redneck about being a NRA, gun loving supporter? Do you not realize that we already have armed police, the national guard, and the most powerful military in the world. Do you not realize that if the government "turned" against you, that your 12-guage isn't going to help you much when they come to get you?

Are you a hunter or something? I dont think the libs have ever went after banning a legitimate hunting gun. But it is a pretty sad thing that there are civilians out there that think they should have the right to own, say, a 50-cal.

But just being plain honest, when i hear someone delare they support the NRA, instantly the term redneck (or gangster, depending on the applicably) pops into my mind. Since you dont really strike me as the gangster type JG, then i guess you can deduce what I think....

You need to pick between genius and redneck, because they're not mutually exclusive.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Not to stray too much, but JG, i'm curious what isn't redneck about being a NRA, gun loving supporter? Do you not realize that we already have armed police, the national guard, and the most powerful military in the world. Do you not realize that if the government "turned" against you, that your 12-guage isn't going to help you much when they come to get you?

Are you a hunter or something? I dont think the libs have ever went after banning a legitimate hunting gun. But it is a pretty sad thing that there are civilians out there that think they should have the right to own, say, a 50-cal.

But just being plain honest, when i hear someone delare they support the NRA, instantly the term redneck (or gangster, depending on the applicably) pops into my mind.

Just briefly (gotta run). Gun rights/NRA/gun laws are my Number One
political hot button. Just one reason I have such distain for most
lib. dems. I am not a redneck nor a gangster and neither are the vast majority of gun owners/users, NRA members or not. As far as
"50 cal.". I firmly believe that properly screened (take out felons
and the mental ill) citizens should be able to own a whole collection
of weaponry far more powerful than the .50 cal. even if someone
decides there is no legitimate "sporting purpose". Furthermore, it's all
those armed governmentally controlled groups that I'm most worried about.
Far more than a mugger or burglar. Yep, I'm pissed off and heavily armed
so it's quite a package. Quite a package indeed.

JG

 

[73ss454]

I only know one thing about guns, and that is that nothing good will happen when guns are involved.

JG's motto is, one can never have enough guns. IMHO this is nuts!

 

[azanon]

Just briefly (gotta run). Gun rights/NRA/gun laws are my Number One
political hot button. Just one reason I have such distain for most
lib. dems. I am not a redneck nor a gangster and neither are the vast majority of gun owners/users, NRA members or not. As far as
"50 cal.". I firmly believe that properly screened (take out felons
and the mental ill) citizens should be able to own a whole collection
of weaponry far more powerful than the .50 cal. even if someone
decides there is no legitimate "sporting purpose". Furthermore, it's all
those armed governmentally controlled groups that I'm most worried about.
Far more than a mugger or burglar. Yep, I'm pissed off and heavily armed
so it's quite a package. Quite a package indeed.

JG

You didn't answer my charges. You talked more about wanting to have the right, and failed to give any reason why, except the silly suggestion that you could successfully oppose the government even if you were armed with a tank.

To own a weapon more powerful than a .50 cal, would mean an armed vehicle or airplane. If i'm not mistaken, there exist no higher calibur of gun than that, that can be fired without the aid of a serious mount.

So if you're not a redneck or gangster, then you just want the right, and you have no legitimate reason for needing that right. Now that makes a lot of sense * sarcasm *

One reason government employees like me exist is to help protect people from themselves. You're your own worst enemy sometimes.

JG, i'd not wish it in a million years, but i hope you dont learn this lesson the hard way, say, when a grandchild comes over, finds your loaded gun that's ready and waiting to take out those evil government workers, then accidentally discharges it into his chest.

 

[jeff2006]

Yep, I'm pissed off and heavily armed
so it's quite a package. Quite a package indeed.

JG

Pissed-off about what? From your posts you seem to have the life that logically results from your expressed desires and reported actions. Just wondering . . .

 

[lets-retire]

I want the ability to own the firearm, because according to the Bill of Rights it is my right to do so, period. I see no place written in the Second Amendment where it says I can only be allowed to own firearms up to a certain caliber, so why can't I own the most powerful firearm. Arty, bombs, and other explosives are not included in this as far as I can tell.

 

[jeff2006]

I want the ability to own the firearm, because according to the Bill of Rights it is my right to do so, period.

Well ...... good for you. Period.

 

[saluki9]

Here in Chicago, if Osama Bin Laden would run as the Democratic candidate, he would definitely win. It isn't the candidate here, it's the party. And it's well under control!

He would have to of course promise to raise taxes on business, ban all guns, and raise taxes on tourists.

Then he would be elected for sure in Chicago (the only problem is I'm not sure he has enough relatives nearby to give jobs to.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Pissed-off about what? From your posts you seem to have the life that logically results from your expressed desires and reported actions. Just wondering . . .

Yeah, you are correct. I was in such a hurry I forgot the smiley.
Just being provocative and hyperbolic as usual. OTOH, a lot of stuff does
annoy me, esp. Bill of Rights issues. Bottom line.............it is true that
my life has turned out pretty much as I designed it. I would only caution
all of you to be careful what you wish for.

JG

 

[alphabet soup]

I would only caution
all of you to be careful what you wish for.

JG

Can I wish you would just disappear to cloud cuckoo land with all the other wingnuts

Just hyperbole, John. NOT!

[Moderator edit: quote fix]

 

[73ss454]

I want the ability to own the firearm, because according to the Bill of Rights it is my right to do so, period. I see no place written in the Second Amendment where it says I can only be allowed to own firearms up to a certain caliber, so why can't I own the most powerful firearm. Arty, bombs, and other explosives are not included in this as far as I can tell.

If the Bill of Rights says that you can have guns and weapons then you can.

Since is was written a couple of hundred years ago I feel it's time for a change. When the Bill or Rights was written we had no organized army nor local police as we do today. I'm sick and tired of picking up the paper and reading about some kid shot by an unproteced weapon. Nothing good ever happens when guns are involved. (period)

 

[bpp]

I want the ability to own the firearm, because according to the Bill of Rights it is my right to do so, period. I see no place written in the Second Amendment where it says I can only be allowed to own firearms up to a certain caliber, so why can't I own the most powerful firearm. Arty, bombs, and other explosives are not included in this as far as I can tell.

"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."

This seems to me to suggest that militarily useful arms are intended to be allowed. Not much use in limiting one's potential militia members to only hunting rifles.

(Note: I don't like widescale gun ownership, but that is what Amendment 2 says. And I don't think that retroactively removing rights from the Constitution would set a very good precedent.)

 

[youbet]

He would have to of course promise to raise taxes on business, ban all guns, and raise taxes on tourists.

Then he would be elected for sure in Chicago (the only problem is I'm not sure he has enough relatives nearby to give jobs to.

He could promise "whatever," but as the party candidate, he would win.

He has plenty of relatives available to fill patronage jobs. They've been in the country since well before the '93 Trade Center bombing. But that's not how patronage works. You give jobs to other families to secure votes. Your relatives get jobs from other politiciansin exchange for vote delivery.

You new to the area?

 

[Mr._johngalt]

He could promise "whatever," but as the party candidate, he would win.

He has plenty of relatives available to fill patronage jobs. They've been in the country since well before the '93 Trade Center bombing. But that's not how patronage works. You give jobs to other families to secure votes. Your relatives get jobs from other politiciansin exchange for vote delivery.

You new to the area?

youbet nailed it. That's how it works.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

"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."

This seems to me to suggest that militarily useful arms are intended to be allowed. Not much use in limiting one's potential militia members to only hunting rifles.

(Note: I don't like widescale gun ownership, but that is what Amendment 2 says. And I don't think that retroactively removing rights from the Constitution would set a very good precedent.)

bpp has presented a thoughtful approach to this, better than my usual rants, for which I apologize. Nothing gets me hotter quicker than
the gun debate/antigunners. BTW, IMHO most anti's actually know very little
about guns or The Second Amendment, or maybe even The BOR itself.
I just go ballistic (hey - good word) when people with absolutly no knowledge of weapons weigh in on ..................assault rifles, for example.
Now, assuming there really is such a thing, many of us believe their
private ownership should be fully protected, which is kind of what bpp
was pointing out.

JG

 

[bpp]

I just go ballistic (hey - good word) when people with absolutly no knowledge of weapons weigh in on ..................assault rifles, for example.
Now, assuming there really is such a thing, many of us believe their
private ownership should be fully protected, which is kind of what bpp
was pointing out.

That is exactly what I was pointing out.

I'm not saying that that is necessarily a right that I would put into a constitution were I writing one today, but it seems to be there in the US constitution, and I would never go along with removing any rights, because sooner or later someone would want to remove one that I do care about.

 

[saluki9]

He could promise "whatever," but as the party candidate, he would win.

He has plenty of relatives available to fill patronage jobs. They've been in the country since well before the '93 Trade Center bombing. But that's not how patronage works. You give jobs to other families to secure votes. Your relatives get jobs from other politiciansin exchange for vote delivery.

You new to the area?

No, lifelong Chicagoan.

 

[saluki9]

Not to stray too much, but JG, i'm curious what isn't redneck about being a NRA, gun loving supporter? Do you not realize that we already have armed police, the national guard, and the most powerful military in the world. Do you not realize that if the government "turned" against you, that your 12-guage isn't going to help you much when they come to get you?

Are you a hunter or something? I dont think the libs have ever went after banning a legitimate hunting gun. But it is a pretty sad thing that there are civilians out there that think they should have the right to own, say, a 50-cal.

But just being plain honest, when i hear someone delare they support the NRA, instantly the term redneck (or gangster, depending on the applicably) pops into my mind. Since you dont really strike me as the gangster type JG, then i guess you can deduce what I think....

You need to pick between genius and redneck, because they're not mutually exclusive.

Well then count me in as a redneck. Remember, the second amendment was written for hunting politicians, not animals.

So who should decide what guns I can own?