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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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.

"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.

(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.

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): "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

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.

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: 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

(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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!)

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".

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: 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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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?

The Col: You've got to be kidding me. You liken global warming deniers to racists. Amazing.

The Col: hahaha, that is how I read it as well....

Artful Dodger: You "published an article questioning the global-warming orthodoxy"

and Al Gore took notice?

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.

Seems that these simpletons believe that "a toy gun today" invariably leads to a "real gun tomorrow."

One parent said that if the kids have Nerf guns, "Then there's no fear holding the real gun when they get older. We want to put that fear back into our children."

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.

Soon after I published an article questioning the global-warming orthodoxy, the world's foremost hypocrite, Al Gore, informed anyone who still listens to him that my position is akin to racism. The wise course of action would be to ignore the rants of a man who desperately needs the world to remain fearful of carbon, the element on which all life on earth is based. If that fear were to vanish, how would he continue to rake in the millions needed for the purchase of his next beach house?

The Col: That's hardly the point. But in answer to your question, yes I would.

Artful Dodger: Would you say that if you were a member of public service employee unions?

Iamon lyme: The worst idea ever was public service employee unions. For a number of reasons, I'd like to see their power minimized. It's our $$

Artful Dodger: Exactly. The causes they supposedly stand for are actually just conduits for what they are really after.. power and money.

I know how cynical that sounds, but when I see it happening time after time after time, I can't come to any other conclusion. Al Gore selling his snake oil (carbon credits) for curing global warming. Obama trying to win favor with the left wingnuts who think health care funds grow on trees.. or should grow on trees, I don't know because I can't figure out how their minds work. Raising taxes for schools (do it for the children) when it's obvious that throwing money at the teachers unions has done nothing to actually help those kids do better in school.. the list goes on and on. The people at the top of this game know exactly what they are doing. It's the people they supposedly represent who wholeheartedly buy into it without thinking it through.

Iamon lyme: Robin Hood only stole from the rich. I wonder if they were nasty rich people or just regular rich people? Anyway, Obama want's to steal from everyone.

And why doesn't congress have to be on the same health insurance plan as we the people? If we're their bosses, why do they get to decide their own raises?

They are the opposite of Robin. They steal from the working class and keep the money for themselves!

Artful Dodger: Even Robin Hood must have taken a cut of the profits for himself and his merry men. You know, operating costs such as mutton, wine, and a little something to keep Maid Marian happy. Not exactly ethical for anyone to be acting as an unofficial middle man, but hey.. it's a living.

(V): "This is great that people in America love their neighbours!!"

How do you figure it's 'loving your neighbour' if you don't have a choice?

(V): It's not the job of the government to steal money from people and give it to others. That's Robin Hood's job.

(V): Why those clever Republicans! I wonder, why hasn't the left thought of doing that? Cudos to those intelligent and highly innovative Republicans for coming up with something entirely new. Maybe the left should try doing something like that.

Erik Telford, AFP's director of online strategy and a leading figure on the right in the deployment of the internet as a political tool, exhorted Tea Party members to attack politicians through their blogs.

"Pick your least favourite public official and beat the crap out of him every day," Telford told the audience. "It's fun, and people will start to notice and you will have a tremendous impact.

"The way to beat the left is to link more and more to one another and to link to articles that are in tune with our ideology and that will push the articles to the top of Google search.""

An idea funded by the Koch brothers

Drug and insurance companies say they are merely seeking to educate politicians and the public. But with industry lobbyists swarming over Capitol Hill ‑ there are six registered healthcare lobbyists for every member of Congress ‑ a partner in the most powerful lobbying firm in Washington acknowledged that healthcare firms' money "has had a lot of influence" and that it is "morally suspect".

Reform groups say vast spending, and the threat of a lot more being poured into advertisements against the administration, has helped drug companies ensure there will be no cap on the prices they charge for medicines ‑ one of the ways the White House had hoped to keep down surging healthcare costs.

Insurance companies have done even better as the new legislation will prove a business bonanza. It is not only likely to kill off the threat of public health insurance, which threatened to siphon off customers by offering lower premiums and better coverage, but will force millions more people to take out private medical policies or face prosecution.

"It's a total victory for the health insurance industry," said Dr Steffie Woolhander, a GP, professor of medicine at Harvard University and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Programme (PNHP).

"What the bill has done is use the coercive power of the state to force people to hand their money over to a private entity which is the private insurance industry. That is not what people were promised."

PNHP blames a political process it says is corrupted by millions of dollars poured into the election campaigns of members of Congress and influencing the discourse about health reform by funding advertising campaigns, supposedly independent studies and patients rights organisations that press the industry's interests.

Corruption in washington approved by those who say it is wrong.

.. never happens

I'm on disability now from AT&T. Three years ago I was making $150,000 a year as a Global Account Manager for Cingular, then I had to go on disability shortly before AT&T took over. I paid for the best health coverage available and also always paid for supplemental disability insurance. I've been on disability and under medical treatment since then. You'd think with my career path, income and savings, and my commitment to always get the most and best insurance I could I should be in great shape, right? I'm now completely broke, I have no retirement savings left, can't pay for my kids college, and my copay on just ONE of my prescriptions has gone from $150 to $1254 for a one-month supply, so I can't even afford the prescription I need to stay alive.

I don't care how good your job is, how secure it is, how great your insurance is, or how much you have in savings and retirement accounts, YOU ARE NOT COVERED. The contractors your company works with (i.e., United Healthcare for Medical Ins., Hewett for Benefits Mgmt., Sedgewick for Disability Mgmt., CVS for drug benefits, etc.) will pull every trick in the book to reduce/deny coverage. Their systems are set up to force you to monitor a constant barrage of paperwork and forms, and if you miss any required response notices, they will permanently drop you from benefits/coverage, and you're screwed, forever.

WASHINGTON — The largest medical insurers and drug companies spent 41% more on lobbying this year as Congress began debate on an overhaul of health care, which may include a public insurance plan the industries oppose. The largest medical insurers and drug companies spent 41% more on lobbying this year as Congress began debate on an overhaul of health care, which may include a public insurance plan the industries oppose.

I say it was not Obama that caused companies to increase insurance costs in the USA, but the extra money the Health companies are spending on making sure they profit while people live in pain, go bankrupt.. or die.

This is great that people in America (practising nimby's) love their neighbours!!