Artful Dodger:

> Fear? How about putting some responsibility and discipline into your children instead, so they can responsibly handle guns to defend their freedom when they get older?

I have a better idea. Why not militarize all schools? Since handling a gun responsible is so important, schools should have a class for children so they learn how to shoot. It would be taught together with art, social studies and math. It would start in grade 1, say with simple revolvers. Then grade 2 would require guns with loading clips. Grade 3 semiautomatics, etc. By the time kids get to high school they would know how to handle an M16, a bazooka, a bayonette, and other weapons that would equip children to be better patriots and fight for their freedom.

Since you so strongly believe that children playing with guns is OK, why not go all the way and educate children in schools. Make it a part of the federal curriculum. All kids must learn to handle a gun. It would be a requirement to graduate from high school, and a requirement to gain entry into college.

After all, if defending freedom is so important, why not formalize the gun training?

Artful Dodger:

> Soon after I published an article questioning the global-warming orthodoxy

Is there a link to the article? I would be interested in reading it.

John Merline of IBT has a funny, but true compilation of "code words" and phrases used by Obama in all of his speeches on jobs:


When he says: We inherited $1 trillion in deficits and an economy headed for a second Great Depression.

What he means is: It's all Bush's fault.

When he says: Thanks to my efforts, the economy was growing until this year.

What he means is: It was Bush's fault, but now it's the House Republicans' fault.

When he says: We need to focus on jobs.

What he means is: After $830 billion in stimulus spending, an auto bailout, cash for clunkers and several other multibillion-dollar "jobs" bills, none of which has worked, we need to try more of the same, but please don't call it a stimulus.

When he says: It's time to put country ahead of party.

What he means is: If you don't pass my plan, you're unpatriotic.

When he says: Our politics are broken.

What he means is: Republicans stubbornly refuse to act like potted plants.

When he says: My Republican friends.

What he means is: Those narrow-minded miscreants who are beholden to Tea Party barbarians that we need to "take out" and who, by the way, put party ahead of country (but I'm not questioning their patriotism).

Couldn't happen here?  Think our bureaucrats and politicians are too smart, too brilliant, too caring to ever let this happen?  British NHC bureaucrats have told General Practitioners  to ration the use of cancer scans including ultrasounds, MRIs and CT scans commonly used to spot tumours in order to save money. (GPs told to ration cancer scans in bureaucratic directive | Mail Online)
 
Britain already has one of the lowest cancer survival rates in Europe, and experts say late diagnosis is to blame.  If you don't think this is what Obama's 15 member Medicare Panel is about, I have some aquatically challenged land in Florida that I can let you have at a really good price.
 
Plus patients with ongoing diseases such as lung disease, heart disease and diabetes and others are to be trained to perform their own tests rather than have GP's do it.  Under British NHC, it's no longer "physician heal thyself", it's now patient heal thyself.
 
Welcome to Obamacare, unless the SCOTUS does the right thing next year and takes this ............plan out, to paraphrase what is acceptable discourse to our President.

Übergeek 바둑이: We've already done something like that, not with guns but with something else. Schools were required (I don't know if they still are) to teach youngers about sex and in some districts even taught how to go about it, and to stop admonishing them to "keep it in their pants". Look at what that has led to.

The fact alone that kids have percieved this as permission to go on unintentional baby making missions has been enough to disrupt lives, and in many instances have killed people through the transmission of STDs. And you are worried about people knowing how to handle a gun? Knowing how to handle guns would reduce the number of accidental deaths, which is still far less than the number of people who have contracted life threatening STDs.

What has happened to a sense of balance, when not knowing about rights and responsibilities of gun ownership is a good thing, but expecting kids to act responsibly is a bad thing?

Personally I don't want my tax dollars spent on teaching my children how to use a weapon or when to have sex. That is my job as a parent.

Marshmud: Amen to that.

All my friends that own guns have had training on how to handle them properly and they routinely go to the shooting range and take safety seriously. One of the guys, a former cop, acts as mentor to the other guys. Now lets see, a group of guys exercising their constitutional right to own a gun and they are extremely responsible for it.

The left wants all guns banned. As if before guns no one was ever murdered. We need more guns, not less.

Govt. Spends $4 Million Dollars to House 12 Homeless People
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 8:44pm by Buck Sexton

Government officials in Bethesda, Maryland, have decided to spend $4 million dollars to provide housing for 12 homeless people for one year.

That’s right. The taxpayer will be providing free housing to a dozen folks in Maryland at the rate of $330,000 per person a year.

This should raise some eyebrows, as the median price of a single family home in the U.S. is $172,000.

Marshmud:

> Personally I don't want my tax dollars spent on teaching my children how to use a weapon

You obviously missed that I was trying to be sarcastic. Art has not replied to that post. I wonder if he thinks it is OK to teach a 6 year old child how to shoot in school. After all, you are teaching children to be "patriots".

Übergeek 바둑이: The reason I didn't reply is your argument is silly. No one is advocating teaching children how to shoot an AK47 or bazzoka. It's about choices. I've said this before. I don't own a gun. That's my choice. No one should force me to own or learn to use a gun. Neither should someone try to force those who choose to own guns, to give them up. I favor gun ownership.

As for your argument that it's "patriotic" to own a gun, that is utter nonsense. It's neither patrotic nor unpatrotic to own or not own a gun.

Another huge flaw in your argument is that the law prohibits guns on school campuses. No one except a police officer can have a gun on a school campus. And schools aren't supposed to be in the business of teaching everything under the sun. However, it's a very good idea to teach kids about gun safety IF and only IF there are guns in the home. And who better to teach them but their own parents? (as opposed to the teachers who may or may not have expertise in firearms).

More people die each year from auto accidents than do from shootings. Let's ban all cars (that's a typical liberal line of reasoning!!!)

September 10, 2011
The American Jobs Act: Why It Will Not Create Jobs
Sara Goss

I'm going to explain how a small business grows in simplest of terms regarding hiring. Since there does seem to be agreement that 70% of the jobs in the United States are created by small businesses then it seems relevant to review how those jobs are created by the small business owner.

You are a small business person. You had an idea. You took a risk. You worked on your idea, you sold your idea, and you managed to make a profit from your sales. The key word here is PROFIT. You have to profit from your enterprise so that you have money to put back into your enterprise. Once you have made enough profit, you can hire additional people. That is how small businesses expand. They make a profit and then invest those profits in expansion by hiring people. Without profits they cannot expand. Without expanding they're not hiring.

So, President Obama says he is going to extend the payroll tax holiday. That's great news for the small business owner. But in the next sentence he says he's going to eliminate those corporate tax loop holes. Huh? If I'm a small business owner I'm listening very carefully to that and here's what I'm hearing: He's going to raise my taxes. What does that do? It reduces my profit. What happens when my profits are reduced? I cannot expand and I cannot hire.

Mr. President, wake up and smell the coffee. You have demonized those horrible people that make a profit to the point where they don't trust you. Nothing would make the small businessman happier than to expand and hire again. But it requires money - profit! And as long as you keep telling them you're going to reach into their pockets and take it, they will not be hiring.

The American Jobs Act, even if passed, will not create jobs.

September 10, 2011
PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe
Timothy Birdnow




Barack Obama has gone to Congress asking for more money to spend. The President, in a rambling and tedious exercise mixing blame with demands, made quite a few dubious statements in laying out the case for Congress to vote for the plan which as yet does not exist. Much like Obamacare, Congress must ultimately vote for the bill to know what is in it.

At one point Mr. Obama made a major gaffe; he identified Abraham Lincoln as the founder of the Republican Party.

Lincoln did not join the Republicans until 1856, over two years after the party was founded. The first Republican convention was held in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854.

Such a gaffe would have brought huge amounts of ridicule and derision on George W. Bush, but in the case of Obama the media yawned.

Actually, they did more than yawn; government-funded PBS has altered the transcript of the President's speech, removing the offending comment.

Marshmud: With guns I agree. But there is a problem with sex ed that many parents don't teach a damn thing. Leading to kids entering the adult world with no idea about the likes of contraception, STD's... and a good description of the birds and the bees.

Not a good idea.

Übergeek 바둑이: Simple solution.. at the time the right to bear arms was made... guns were single shot slow loaders. If they were good enough for the founding fathers of the USA... .... then there is no need for automatic shotguns, automatics and other guns designed to take out a small village on one clip.

Seeing pre pubescent kids owing over a dozen firearms is freaky.

Artful Dodger:

Your arguments contradict themselves:

> Fear? How about putting some responsibility and discipline into your children instead, so they can responsibly handle guns to defend their freedom when they get older?

> Our freedom was bequeathed to us by our Founders, who fought an armed revolution against the British to secure it. James Madison, who wrote in Federalist #46 that Americans have "the advantage of being armed, which [they] possess over the people of almost every other nation" must be rolling in his grave.

OK, the Founding Fathers gave you freedom and posession of a firearm is enshrined in the constitution. Now, you say that we should put responsibility and dsicipline into children so they can protect freedom when they grow up.

Well, then why is this idea not enshrined in the educational system?

> Another huge flaw in your argument is that the law prohibits guns on school campuses. No one except a police officer can have a gun on a school campus.

So the consitution applies everywhere except a school campus.

> And schools aren't supposed to be in the business of teaching everything under the sun. However, it's a very good idea to teach kids about gun safety IF and only IF there are guns in the home. And who better to teach them but their own parents? (as opposed to the teachers who may or may not have expertise in firearms).

You mean, like parents teach sexual education to their kids? If the way parents taught sexual education were adequate, there would NEVER be teenage pregnacies. Then, I am sure all parents with guns are really responsible and know how to teach gun safety.

Since teachers are not equipped to teach firearms, why not bring in the military? Every school would have a career military instructor teaching kids how to handle guns safely. It makes sense to let an expert teach other how to do things, rather than leaving it to "amateurs" such as school teachers and parents.

I know that my argument is stupid. I am trying to make a point. you come out and say this:

"From the "They can't really be this stupid - can they?" category, an urban anti-violence group in Buffalo, NY conducted a gun "buyback" - targeting Nerf guns. Yes, Nerf guns - the spring-loaded children's toys that fire harmless, spongy little projectiles."

To you anything that opposes the right wing view of gun ownership seems wrong. Is it stupid to teach children that guns are wrong? I suppose simulated violence is not harmful until some kid realizes that if he replaces nerf sponge with real lead bullets he can get back at the bullies in his school.

No, we should teach them discipline and responsibility. Let's leave that to parents because ALL parents are really disciplined and responsible. Then the kids will grow up to be good little soldiers who will die protecting freedom, and the political and eocnomic interests of the ruling elite.

Did it occur to you perhaps that teaching children that guns are wrong is a form of discipline and responsibility too? I suppose it is OK for Children to play games taht simulate violence. It is disciplined and responsible to do so.

(V):

> Seeing pre pubescent kids owing over a dozen firearms is freaky.

Correction. Seeing ANYBODY owning a dozen firearms is freaky.

Would be comfortable living next door to a man who has a dozen shotguns in his basement?

Art says "respnsibility and discipline in handling firearms". Now, your next door neighbor might be really good and responsible, or he might go crazy one day and start shooting everybody. If you are lucky he will be the former. If you are not, you might end up dead. In the meantime you are waiting to find out, and I am sure you will sleep soundly at night!

Übergeek 바둑이: You don't get it. It isn't ABOUT owning a gun. It's about being responsible. Most liberals miss that point. You focus on the gun and omit the personal responsibility we all have. You CAN own a gun responsibly. And here's a news flash for ya: It's a constitutional right so stop whining about it and move on already. ~sigh

Übergeek 바둑이: Not really unless it was his job to make or repair/restore them.

If someone needed them to make themselves feel 'safe' ... then no way. That kinda paranoia and guns do not mix well. It's a rampage waiting to happen and statistically one will.

"or he might go crazy one day and start shooting everybody."

Well... then surely like we have in the UK the person needs declaring sane before he is allowed to possess that much death dealing hardware. N' that most is locked up safely to stop kids and criminals nicking them.

Übergeek 바둑이: There would be less. Some part of teenage sex (as with teenage drug taking/booze drinking) is that it is wrong... a rebellion, as expected of kids, as it is what kids do.

Unless they are so mentally abused they become zombies par say.

(V): "It's a rampage waiting to happen and statistically one will"

unless you can show a statistic that says that half of gun owners will go on a rampage, then it is just another false liberal spin that you are making up

Vikings: It's a total false liberal spin. They always play to the worse case scenario. But as I've already pointed out in an earlier post, in a State where carrying a concealed weapon into restaurants and bars etc is the law of the land, crime is down. Not up, down. The libs have their pants down on this issue and have to make up stories in order to support their refuted position.

(V): "Seeing pre pubescent kids owning over a dozen firearms is freaky."

Where have you seen that? Here in the U.S. pre pubescent kids are too young to own guns, and the pubescent ones are usually too preoccupied with thoughts of sex to care about having a gun.

"Since teachers are not equipped to teach firearms, why not bring in the military? Every school would have a career military instructor teaching kids how to handle guns safely. It makes sense to let an expert teach other how to do things, rather than leaving it to "amateurs" such as school teachers and parents."


Übergeek 바둑이: And since you are also an advocate of sex education in schools, let's take your logic into that area as well.

Since teachers are not equipped to teach sex education, why not bring in professional prostitutes? Better yet, a couple from the porn industry. Every school would have a sex instructor teaching kids how to handle ...er.....sex safely. It makes sense to let an expert teach other how to do things, rather than leaving it to "amateurs" such as school teachers and parents.

Iamon lyme: They are making this argument up as they go. Next we will have little Johnny, the terrible 2 year old, driving a tank down the sidewalk trying to take out little Suzie's swimming pool.

it's amazing how after 40 plus years of the memory of playing with cap guns, nerf guns, rubber band guns, b-b guns and just plain pointing my finger as a gun, playing cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, americans and germans,

How is it possable that my self or no one that I grew up with has ever shot anyone

oh I forgot about Big game hunder Duck hunter, atari and nintendo shooting games

how liberals will come up with an argument about people shooting someone because of toys, but disput the facts on just who is a terrorist

Vikings: I live in a hunting community and not one kid I know has grown up to become a killer. On the contrary, they have grown up respecting guns and have learned to handle them responsibly. Liberals never met a freedom they didn't want to destroy.

Artful Dodger: A few years ago I read about a town where a law was passed requiring every person of age to own a gun. After that law was passed there was no (zero) crime reported during the following year. So what does this mean? It probably means that no criminal in his right mind is going to assault anyone in a town where everyone is required to own a weapon.

Liberals seemed to be focused on what a violent or deranged person might do. It begs the question, just what percentage of the population do they believe is mindlessly violent and deranged?

Iamon lyme: Well we know there are plenty of those in the liberal camp. Just look at the violence at any liberal gathering. Hate speech and violence against persons. Maybe they are afraind of their own?

Longshoreman assaults media


google it and you'll see just how well behaved union thugs can be......I'd post the link but the language prohibits it. Keep in mind, you're not seeing the tea party at work here but organized labor.

Artful Dodger: Afraid to disagree with their own, and of course deathly afraid of pre pubescent kids.

I get the same hillarious image of toddlers going camando in their pull ups, the little rambos and ramboettes running around terrorizing the neighborhood. Parents often joke about their kids this way, but maybe liberals think we are being serious.

There seems to be no end to the things we are supposed to be afraid of.. and we can't spend too much money to fight the imaginary dragons either.

Iamon lyme: So true. We were always playing cops and robbers and cowboys and indians. Anything would do for a gun - like a stick. To this day, I've never used a stick to shoot anyone. I did throw a rock once tho.

“[B]arack Obama is no Harry Truman,” Krauthammer said. It’s not that complicated. Obama is over his head. He is a great orator. He came out of nowhere. He dazzled America. He [has] never run anything. He never actually enacted anything even in the legislature. He hadn’t run a state. He hadn’t run a city. He hadn’t run a business. He is running the biggest enterprise in the world and he has not succeeded. And that is why all of these independents, all of those who believed in a soaring rhetoric, including probably a couple who swooned in the aisles as he spoke in 2008, are now waking up and realizing he is a mortal who is in over his head."

Artful Dodger: Little Suzie knows that Johnny is coming, and is waiting to take him out with her laser sighting anti-tank thingy. Before that happens they need to call a cease fire so Johnny can hurry home to go potty.. hopefully, he will reach his objective before accomplishing his mission.

Iamon lyme: And we mustn't forget IPBM's. Inter-property Ballistic Missiles. Currently they are using water balloons and sling shots, but you KNOW where that leads!!!

Iamon lyme: It would be interesting to see how many of the crazies who have shot people up, are libs. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a high percentage. Perhaps they know in the back of their minds that THEY are the likely ones we should be worrying about having guns.

rod03801: I've wondered about that too, but have you noticed we are aways informed of a crazies political views if it sounds like right wing ranting?

In my local news paper if a politician has done something embarassing or said something odd, more often than not you'll see his party affiliation in parenthesis next to his (or her) name. But not if that politician happens to be a Democrat. Sometimes misinformation is subtley passed along more by omission than by out right lying. So it is very possible to create a mental image in the publics eye that doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

When someone talks about the public being ignorant of what is going on, I don't believe it's always the publics fault. It never hurts to read between the lines.. the aliens are watching, and waiting to make their move, so we must be ever vigilant.

Vikings: lol I said it is statistically inevitable that there will be a rampage. NOT that half the gun owners will go on the rampage.

You just can't have the loose controls on guns and ownership without one disturbed person flipping and ending up taking out his fear/anger induced reality on others.

Can I prove this is true? History shows it is true. It's not spin, it's a fact.

rod03801: I think trying to say more conservatives then liberals or vice versa have gone crazy and killed is nuts.

But.. you could ask under your version of the freedom of information act there is such data available.

(V): clearly there is more violence, both in rhetoric and physical violence, on the liberal side. It's a no brainer.

Speaking about Obama, a Democrat said this:

"In my district, the enthusiasm for him has mostly evaporated," said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon. "There is tremendous discontent with his direction."

heading into an election....that's not good....for libs. Great for America though!

September 11, 2011
Obama's Vapor Legislation
Dan Joppich




Obama's new campaign catch phrase is "Pass This Bill!" He said some variation of "pass this jobs bill" 16 times in his campaign speech before the joint session Thursday and he's repeating it ad naussium in stump speeches since.

This is a little different than last campaign's "Hope and Change!"

Unfortunately nobody has seen any "Bill", let alone reviewed it, analyzed it, debated it, etc. The Congressional Budget Office hasn't scored it (as they've said in the past - we can't estimate it because it's just a speech) so we don't know the cost. And nobody has figured out how we are going to pay for it. Heck, nobody even knows how many jobs it will create even though it's titled American Jobs Act. Obama doesn't even know how many jobs it will create. He never mentioned that anywhere in his campaign speech on Thursday either.

My new catch phrase is, "Pass what bill?"

Apparently his target audience is Malia and Sasha. According to the White House Press Office, Obama's kids get it. Jay Carney gets it. The Liberal Lame Stream Media get it. 100% of the Democrats in the Senate and House are ready to vote for it. No logical person gets it though.

Any thinking American would say, "Get what? There's nothing to get."

As Pelosi says, "We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it." This seems to be the new normal in Obama's Liberal Progressive bizarro-world. Not only don't we get to read it before voting on it - we don't even get to see it.

Let's call it "vapor legislation".

Artful Dodger:

> Since teachers are not equipped to teach sex education, why not bring in professional prostitutes?

Of course, sex education is about teaching children how to have sex, not about how to avoid unwated sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies. That is of course, teching responsibility.

Now, how do you teach responsibility with guns? Some parents are equipped, other are not. if every parent were equipped to teach responsible use of guns, there would be no Columbine massacres.

Übergeek 바둑이: Of course you can teach responsible gun ownership. Thousands do it all the time. And since we have the Constitutional right to own guns, that's the best you're gonna get. You won't get rid of guns with extreme examples of abuse. That happens in many siituations. You don't limit freedoms because of the abuse of a few.

"The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C.. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War......

.....Former US Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin and UK Labour MP and Father of the House of Commons, Tam Dalyell, criticized PNAC members for promoting policies which support an idealized version of war, even though only a handful of PNAC members have served in the military or, if they served, seen combat.[44]

As quoted in Paul Reynolds' BBC News report, David Rothkopf stated:

Their [The Project for the New American Century's] signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened. The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy. Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration.[24]

In discussing the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000), Neil MacKay, investigations editor for the Scottish Sunday Herald, quoted Tam Dalyell: "'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. These are the thought processes of fanaticist Americans who want to control the world....

........The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that was founded in 2009. It is committed to strong U.S. diplomatic, economic and military engagement in the world, support for democratic allies of the U.S., and opposition to "rogue regimes" that threaten American interests. FPI shares directors and staff with the now defunct and controversial Project for the New American Century, and is described in the media as its successor organization."

(V): Conservatism in the US is on the rise and a huge majority. It's independents that sway elections and they are leaning rightly Right.