Sunday Open Thread

Sunday is just a good day for an open thread, so let us know what is on your mind. In this new day of welcoming more liberal opinion on B4V, I particularly encourage the liberals to chime in and let us know what you think of the current state of affairs. I will tell you what’s on my mind as I sit hear and listen to the brain damage emanating from the Melissa Harris Perry show on MSNBC – 1. The liberals on the show are pining for “common sense” gun control legislation, somehow oblivious to the plethora of laws already on the books. Instead of the “smart” people on the panel analyzing the laws currently in place, and questioning why that legislation might be ineffective, they continue to blame the republicans for blocking more legislation, proving once again that liberals have never met a bigger government they didn’t like. 2. On the heels of a miserable jobs report, anemic 4th quarter GDP growth, and the possibility that Obama will once again call for more tax hikes, the “smart” liberals are saying that it is just a temporary economic pause, and that those reports don’t really reflect the growing consumer confidence and an economy that is in fact turning around. It has to be difficult to be a liberal these days having to deny reality and continue to distort and spin the news in a desperate attempt to convince people that they are not completely insane. Many of us know better.

Advertisements

81 thoughts on “Sunday Open Thread

  1. Retired Spook April 7, 2013 / 11:54 am

    In this new day of welcoming more liberal opinion on B4V

    Yeah, I heard about that. Should be a marvelous new era here at B4V. My heart’s all a’flutter.

    I’d love for any of the Liberals who visit here to explain exactly how universal background checks would work. Who exactly would they have go through a background check that isn’t already going through a background check? All gun purchases from federally licensed dealers, whether from a gun store or a booth at a gun show are already subject to background checks. How do you enforce a background check in any other instance, especially when you don’t currently prosecute but a tiny fraction of people who have been stopped by the current background check system, and you won’t make psychiatric records available to cross-reference with background checks?

    • Cluster April 7, 2013 / 12:02 pm

      The key to that provision will be to get the black market criminal who sell guns to do background checks and I think the effort there should start with posting signs in high crime areas. Signs that read – “all black market gun purchases subject to back ground checks”

      That should stop gun crimes right in there tracks. Problem solved.

      • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 12:09 pm

        50 + shootings a week in chi cago how many prosecutions foe illegal weapons?
        how many of the shooters have CCW and background checks?

        like the very successful “war on drugs” this should be another federal success story.

      • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 12:18 pm

        cluster

        and “NO STOLEN GUNs ALLOWED” signs.

      • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 1:17 pm

        if obamba had sons

        Gay Connecticut couple accused of raping adopted children will face trial

    • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 12:06 pm

      Rode the horse (iron) to the American Legion yesterday, great post right on the water, boat docks, tiki bar music, $1.00 beers….
      There was a table of five or six guys and their wives/gf’s all in biker leathers lots of tats.
      When I passed the table they all said hi (as the Princess and I were in our leathers also) I noticed one of their vests had a patch “NYFD, 911 riders.” They are all retired firemen from NY and ALL were at the towers on that fateful day.
      Being from Buffalo and having lived in NYC for a time we were invited to sit down and hang with them for a while.
      We had a ball and what a bunch of wild and crazy guys, lots of war stories and 911 tales. Really interesting …..(and they ALL HATE the POS in the white hut!) lots of common ground.

      • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 12:36 pm

        Or

      • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 12:41 pm

        or

        yeah just make MORE and MORE and MORE laws…..

    • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 12:31 pm

      In this new day of welcoming more liberal opinion on B4V

      hope you still dump the trolls.

    • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 1:06 pm

      background checks?

      Army Training Material on ‘Religious Extremism’ Lists Evangelical Christians, Catholics and Some Jews Alongside KKK, Al-Qaeda and Hamas

      “It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization.”

      AmeriKa under the kenyan usurper..

  2. ricorun April 7, 2013 / 12:23 pm

    Does this invitation apply to “legacy Republican” types too? Or does the term “liberal” apply to anyone who does not consider themselves a constitutionalist conservative?

    • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 12:31 pm

      reek0

      you are here so……..

    • ricorun April 7, 2013 / 12:39 pm

      Assuming it does…

      Spook: How do you enforce a background check in any other instance, especially when you don’t currently prosecute but a tiny fraction of people who have been stopped by the current background check system, and you won’t make psychiatric records available to cross-reference with background checks?

      It sounds like you’re making some recommendations to make background checks more effective. I applaud that. Moreover, others, even some with associations with the NRA agree with you.

      • Cluster April 7, 2013 / 12:43 pm

        Rico, It also includes “legacy democrats”. I use to be a democrat, but the party went to far left for me.

      • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 12:43 pm

        reekO

        background checks are already done on every LEGAL firearm sale.
        more is stupid, NONE of the mass shooters bought their weapons they were all stolen.

      • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 12:49 pm

        A ball less community agitator at the helm while some pissant country pees on our shoes….AGAIN!!

        The United States has decided to delay a long-planned missile test scheduled for next week out of California “to avoid any misperception or miscalculation”, given tensions with North Korea, a senior US defence official has said.

      • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 12:54 pm

        drudge

        Mob of black teens beat elderly white man…

        all had licensed firearms and back ground checks im sure……

      • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 1:11 pm

        reekO

        hmmmmm hitler and mao would be proud

        ATF Seeks ‘Massive’ Database of Personal Info: ‘Assets, Relatives, Associates and More’

      • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 1:28 pm

        reekO

        do you suppose this donk had a background check??

        Anti-Gun Pennsylvania Mayor Drunkenly Demand Oral Sex at Gunpoint
        theothermccain ^ | 04/05/2013 | Robert McCain

        The mayor of Marcus Hook was charged [March 21] with holding an acquaintance hostage during a drunken encounter at his home last month that allegedly ended with the mayor’s firing a gun into the floor. During the encounter, Mayor James D. Schiliro repeatedly offered to perform a sex act with the 20-year-old male, according to police.

      • ricorun April 11, 2013 / 9:42 pm

        Cluster: Rico, It also includes “legacy democrats”. I use [sic] to be a democrat, but the party went to [sic] far left for me.

        Interestingly, my experience is quite the opposite — namely, the tent stakes of the Republican party have continuously retreated from me — something I have contended for more than a decade on this site now. I have changed hardly at all, but most certainly the Republican party has. And that’s a fact.

      • Amazona April 12, 2013 / 10:10 am

        rico, you seem to be singing the same old song of identity vs ideology. If the Republican Party identity shifted, in your mind, did that change the commitment to Constitutional government that should have been the foundation of your membership in the first place?

        I was a Democrat because I had no real political philosophy, having been lured into the tent of Fairness, Equality, and Respect for Women by the carnival hucksters of the Left. That was enough for me. I was young and easily tempted by the superficial and emotionally appealing.

        It took the callous discarding of those promises, when the Democrat Party started to make comments about some women being “too ugly to rape” and joked about what you get when you troll a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, to make me realize how shallow my reasoning had been. This is when I realized that I needed a stronger, better, foundation for political decisions than personality or promises, and started to study the foundations of our nation and its Constitution, and its history.

        This all led me to the conservative ideology, which is immutable. I vote Republican because, though the party is hardly a shining example of conservative belief, it is far closer than the increasingly radical Leftism of the Democrat Party, and more likely to be reformed into a conservative party. I register as a Republican only because of the impact of polling on the ignorant, and a desire to not allow the Left to claim more adherents than it actually has, but my political ideology is not affected by the vagaries of the Old Guard.

      • Amazona April 12, 2013 / 10:22 am

        rico, people like you remind me of some people I know. A married couple with five grown children, they were third and fourth generation Catholics. When they moved to the mountains, they attended Mass two times at the local Catholic church, and when no one rushed up to hug them and welcome them, they went to a Protestant church, where they were given the full treatment.

        So they changed religions.

        This made me think their “Catholicism” was pretty shallow and superficial, and not based on doctrine.

        This was in Aspen, where many in a church at any given service are tourists, so it did not surprise me to learn that the congregation did not see new faces as additions to the flock, at least not for a couple of visits. When a friend and I visited them, we went to their new church with them. She and I agreed that it was like brushing up against a cult. We were swarmed with people pushing pushing pushing us to join, we signed a guest register and were called daily for weeks asking why we had not returned, and it was a pretty creepy experience. But this was the kind of emotionally validating experience my friends needed—and what they substituted for actual religious belief.

        And this is part of what led me to my current and long-standing conviction that we need to focus on core beliefs and not political identity. because political identity is so easily influenced by the superficial.

      • ricorun April 17, 2013 / 9:27 pm

        Amazona: rico, you seem to be singing the same old song of identity vs ideology.

        Only you would sing the same old song of one versus the other. In reality the “distinction” is between ideology and everything else. Face it hon, reality is wrought in technicolor, not in greys along a single continuum.

        If the Republican Party identity shifted, in your mind, did that change the commitment to Constitutional government that should have been the foundation of your membership in the first place?

        No. What shifted is the commitment to pragmatism. What replaced it was an ideological commitment to “constitutional government” which, given the techicolor (i.e., multidimensional) nature of the real world, is logically neither internally nor externally consistent within a bi-party system of government. You (and others) seem to ignore the fact that the Republican party is grappling with where they should plant their tent stakes while ignoring the fact that any single ideology can’t logically encompass everyone who might be inclined to some tenets, but who might likelise find other totally unacceptable. Yet you call anyone who can’t fall totally into line a “victim of identity politics”. Pardon me for saying so, but that’s a profoundly stupid attitude. Mind you, I”m not calling YOU stupid (I’m quite sure you’re not), but I am once again calling your attitude of trying to devolve the many dimensions of real life into a single, black/white, left/right ideological dichotomy as stupid.

      • ricorun April 17, 2013 / 9:59 pm

        Amazona: When a friend and I visited them, we went to their new church with them. She and I agreed that it was like brushing up against a cult. We were swarmed with people pushing pushing pushing us to join, we signed a guest register and were called daily for weeks asking why we had not returned, and it was a pretty creepy experience. But this was the kind of emotionally validating experience my friends needed—and what they substituted for actual religious belief.

        Pardon me for saying so, but that is exactly the tactic of the Mormon Church around here. They are relentless to the point of getting well into the creepy area. This is not the kind of emotionally validating experience I need. Interestingly though, Mormons vote heavily Republican — with or without Romney on the ticket. Apparently it works with someone.

  3. watsonthethird April 7, 2013 / 1:36 pm

    Cluster said:

    In this new day of welcoming more liberal opinion on B4V, I particularly encourage the liberals to chime in and let us know what you think of the current state of affairs.

    Spook says he “heard about” this and his heart is all aflutter. Is there new management here? A new attitude? Just wondering. Last time I explained why I thought gay marriage was a civil rights issue, the comment was moderated out of existence.

    Anyway, as far as gun background checks, the law should require a background check on every sale, whether from a licensed dealer or not. That it would be difficult to enforce doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be the law. I would also say that if a gun sold in violation of the law (i.e., without a background check) wound up used in the commission of a crime by the buyer, then the seller should be liable for even more penalties and jail time.

    Let me ask you Spook, if you wanted to sell one of your guns via a private transaction, and you knew that you would be violating the law if you did not do the necessary paperwork, would you violate the law anyway, knowing you could face stiff fines or jail time? That’s not a risk I would want to take just to skip the inconvenience of doing some paperwork.

    • neocon01 April 7, 2013 / 1:44 pm

      waspstooge

      would you accept the same argument for voting??

    • Retired Spook April 7, 2013 / 2:52 pm

      Let me ask you Spook, if you wanted to sell one of your guns via a private transaction, and you knew that you would be violating the law if you did not do the necessary paperwork, would you violate the law anyway, knowing you could face stiff fines or jail time?

      I’ve only ever sold 2 firearms to another individual; in the mid 70’s and late 80’s. And both individuals were people I knew well, and I got receipts for both of them. Given the change in political climate, I doubt that I would sell a gun to another individual today — certainly not to someone I didn’t know.

      The fear that many gun owners have is that universal background checks will involve having to show a receipt proving ownership of a firearm before it could be sold, and failure to provide prove of ownership would result in confiscation of the firearm.

      • watsonthethird April 7, 2013 / 3:41 pm

        You didn’t directly answer the question, but I wouldn’t say that having a receipt is the same as having done a background check on the buyer. One way you could do it would be for you and the buyer to meet a licensed dealer where he would perform the background check. That is how some Internet guns sales are handled. I am aware of the fear that some people have that something like background checks will lead to confiscation, but I think it’s an irrational fear. We can have a difference of opinion on that. 🙂

      • Cluster April 7, 2013 / 4:05 pm

        Watson,

        Explain to me how you enforce back ground checks with criminals who buy there guns on the black market. That’s where the problem is. It’s not with people like Spook. Maybe you haven’t figured that out yet.

      • Cluster April 7, 2013 / 5:11 pm

        C’mon now Watson, don’t avoid me. Lets get to the crux of the matter here and that is, none of these criminals give a f**k about your laws and your back ground checks. They will get their guns either through the black market, or simply steal them, and none of your feel good, second amendment restrictions will do anything to prevent that.

        Secondly, if liberals weren’t so hyper sensitive about the mentally ill, maybe we could have early detection, early reporting, and proactive measures to get those folks off the streets. That is some common sense legislation that actually might accomplish something.

      • Retired Spook April 7, 2013 / 6:07 pm

        One way you could do it would be for you and the buyer to meet a licensed dealer where he would perform the background check. That is how some Internet guns sales are handled.

        Watson, that’s how ALL Intgernet gun sales are handled. I just purchased a Glock 22 Gen4 .40 from Cheaperthandirt.com. It was shipped to a local dealer, where I completed a background check and paid a $30 transfer fee. If the universal background check legislation passes, and private sales are required to go through a licensed dealer, I would comply with that law, because I’m a law-abiding citizen. For every person like me, there are probably 10 who wouldn’t comply. And if someone came to me and wanted to buy a gun from me for illicit purposes, I doubt he/she would submit to a dealer transaction involving a background check. So such a law might prevent a criminal from buying a gun from someone like me, but it wouldn’t prevent them from obtaining a gun.

      • ricorun April 7, 2013 / 7:58 pm

        Career criminals generally don’t commit crimes like Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Virginia Tech. Deranged individuals do. Perhaps that’s something people on both the left and the right need to appreciate.

        Also, it’s incorrect to say that all said deranged killers obtained their weapons and ammunition illegally.

      • ricorun April 7, 2013 / 8:21 pm

        Cluster: Secondly, if liberals weren’t so hyper sensitive about the mentally ill, maybe we could have early detection, early reporting, and proactive measures to get those folks off the streets. That is some common sense legislation that actually might accomplish something.

        What, exactly, do you suggest? Do you suggest that we should institutionalize anyone (or a larger subset) who shows symptoms of mental illness? Among other things (like constitutional rights), that could get awfully expensive awfully fast. And I’m guessing you wouldn’t be fine with that. Or perhaps you’re suggesting that the gov’t should spend more money on studies identifying who might commit such horrific crimes. If so, what would you expect of such studies in a given time-frame? And how would you react if they didn’t meet up to your expectations?

        Face it, no matter how you spin your suggestion, you have to realize that the “hyper sensitivity”, as you call it, is much more of a libertarian concept than a liberal one.

      • Cluster April 7, 2013 / 8:35 pm

        Rico, thank you for the comments from the paralysis by analysis institution. There are more gun murders committed every day on the streets of Chicago, LA, etc., by criminals who get their guns illegally than by the occasional Sandy Hook. And those criminals don’t care about liberal feel good safety checks.

        Secondly, it has been reported that Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner and the Colorado guy (can’t think of his name), were displaying serious signs of mental instability and the people that they had come in contact with and actually reported that, did nothing. Some of them were even professionals.

        So lets dispense with the hand wringing, and restrictions against law abiding citizens and work on the actual problem. You know, real world stuff.

      • neocon01 April 8, 2013 / 8:56 am

        waspstooge

        YOU didnt answer the question would you accept the same standards for voting??

      • ricorun April 17, 2013 / 10:34 pm

        Cluster: Rico, thank you for the comments from the paralysis by analysis institution.

        You infer it’s me, but it’s actually YOU that’s suggesting paralysis by analysis. And that is a liberal attitude, not a libertarian one.

        So let’s talk about real world stuff… The reality is that deranged people, often with no criminal record but often with some kind of psychological record, end up committing mass murders. Often their only apparent motive is to commit the most heinous crime imaginable. You seem to be suggesting that we should spend untold heaps of money on the motive part of the equation and ignore the opportunity end of the equation. And obviously it’s efforts on the opportunity end of the equation that are the most cost-effective.

  4. watsonthethird April 7, 2013 / 9:54 pm

    Cluster said:

    C’mon now Watson, don’t avoid me. Lets get to the crux of the matter here and that is, none of these criminals give a f**k about your laws and your back ground checks.

    Wow. This is the new B4V? By the way, my question is still out there wondering if there really is a change here. Judging by your response, I guess not. As for avoiding you, please excuse the fact that I was out all day. Believe it or not, my day doesn’t revolve around you.

    Secondly, if liberals weren’t so hyper sensitive about the mentally ill, maybe we could have early detection, early reporting, and proactive measures to get those folks off the streets. That is some common sense legislation that actually might accomplish something.

    Liberals are hyper sensitive about the mentally ill? Please give examples. And to repeat Rico’s question, What exactly, do you suggest?

    As for background checks not preventing all criminals from obtaining guns, yes, Cluster, we all know that. That doesn’t mean that we should do away with background checks. According to one website I found with a minute’s research, 1.8 million prospective purchasers of guns have been denied because of a background check. I don’t know where that statistic comes from, but even if it’s inflated, that’s a lot of sales denied. What do you think they found in those background checks?

    • Cluster April 7, 2013 / 10:05 pm

      Wow, you are delicately sensitive aren’t you? So we can’t ridicule you personally, but now we can’t even ridicule your ideas? Tell you what Watson, how about if you just give us the narrow list of what we can, and can not, ridicule. It would save us all a lot of time.

      Liberals are hyper sensitive over mental issues. In fact Jared Loughner and the Colorado guy were both diagnosed by educational professionals as being a little off, and possibly dangerous, but failed to report anything due to the liberal sacrament of “privacy laws”. I suggest that when school professionals, care takers, care providers, etc., observe possible mental instability that that person is referred to a mental professional, period.

      And I never said eliminate back ground checks now did I sport? We already do back ground checks, BUT that won’t stop one criminal from getting a gun, now will it? Again, it’s that real world stuff.

      • watsonthethird April 7, 2013 / 10:56 pm

        Sensitive? You should know, complaining that I wasn’t responding fast enough and all. But if we continue, we’ll just descend into personal chitchat that the moderator won’t like.

        Anyway, I take it the “new day of welcoming more liberal opinion on B4V” was a belated April Fool’s joke, See you around, Cluster.

      • Cluster April 8, 2013 / 8:13 am

        C’mon now Watson, I just want you to tell me how more invasive back ground checks will prevent criminals from getting guns. At the end of the day, that is the issue. We do have back ground checks right now, we do have “gun free zones”, and we do have bans on some weapons, so please tell me how expanding legislation along these lines will stop criminals. In my opinion, it will only serve to restrict law abiding citizens, but maybe that is what liberals want.

        Barstool, nobody advocated imprisoning suspected mentally imbalanced people. But it would be common sense too have those suspected people talk to a mental health professional and of that professional deemed it necessary, we could put them on a list restricting them from making gun purchases.

  5. watsonthethird April 7, 2013 / 9:56 pm

    Spook said:

    If the universal background check legislation passes, and private sales are required to go through a licensed dealer, I would comply with that law, because I’m a law-abiding citizen. For every person like me, there are probably 10 who wouldn’t comply. And if someone came to me and wanted to buy a gun from me for illicit purposes, I doubt he/she would submit to a dealer transaction involving a background check. So such a law might prevent a criminal from buying a gun from someone like me, but it wouldn’t prevent them from obtaining a gun.

    Right. And I would do the same. No one claims universal background checks will universally prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals, but to me, if it prevents some gun sales that shouldn’t happen, then it’s worth the inconvenience.

  6. M. Noonan April 7, 2013 / 11:39 pm

    We’re welcoming liberals? Can we still make fun of them?

    • watsonthethird April 8, 2013 / 12:06 am

      I think that’s the point, Mark.

      • mitchethekid April 8, 2013 / 9:23 pm

        Not sure what you mean Watson, but I think it means that one can “make fun” of: or be critical of, liberalism as a political philosophy without demeaning people who; in certain areas, possess a more liberal point of view.
        Mark’s comment is interesting, particularly in light of his previous contemplation of running for office. The person who wins, is the one who receives the most votes. I am sure that concept is something we all agree on. It seems to me that instead of trying to reinforce ideas already held by those who are in agreement with me, by “making fun of” (in this case) liberals, I would make arguments directed towards liberals in an effort to convince them that a conservative point of view is superior. And then tell them why. Perhaps some would re-evaluate their opinions. Making fun of your opposition instead appealing to them is counter-productive to getting their votes. Look at it from a marketing standpoint. If Pepsi told Pepsi buyers that Coke buyers are deviant cat torturers, how many Coke buyers would re-consider even thinking about taking the Pepsi Challenge.
        And again I applaud Cluster for his efforts.

      • M. Noonan April 8, 2013 / 11:14 pm

        Mitch,

        Depends – if dealing with people who are open to argument, then best to stick to facts and only make a little bit of fun. But when you come across people who will try to ban someone in the name of diversity – well, such is bosh, and making fun of them is all you can do.

      • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 9:07 am

        bmitch

        And again I applaud Cluster for his efforts.

        yet you brag over at the fork on how you are using him and suckering him in.
        we see you for who you really are mitchie and it is a foul, profane, drunken psycho.
        you fit in well at your new home.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 8, 2013 / 9:53 am

      They ridicule and make fun of us. I can’t imagine why we shouldn’t reciprocate.

  7. bardolf2 April 8, 2013 / 12:28 am

    “Face it, no matter how you spin your suggestion, you have to realize that the “hyper sensitivity”, as you call it, is much more of a libertarian concept than a liberal one.” – Ricorun

    I would like to further with this line of thought. It is a very dangerous precedent to imprison people against their will because a group of family + psychologists decide they should be locked up. The precedent led quickly to giving young boys chemicals which literally rewire the brain, all simply because the kid doesn’t want to sit still for a boring day in school.

    One has to be very careful about pronouncing benefits to any policy which would seek to prevent another Adam Lanza. How should one think about the deaths which happen to people who drive long distances (and hence get into the more probable fatal accident) instead of being patted down by the TSA? This is leaving aside the crippling costs of the DHS to the economy which takes money out of the private sector and puts it into the government sector thereby raising unemployment. How many men kill themselves every year because they see themselves as useless if they aren’t gainfully employed?

    Actually most deaths with guns are with legally purchased guns, because the majority of deaths are suicides and not homicides. Maybe the guns of ranchers who’ve hit hard times should be confiscated. Both NPR and Forbes seem to believe it.

  8. Jeremiah April 8, 2013 / 1:14 am

    I have quite a bit on my mind, one of them being how one is going to survive the coming economic implosion. Another is the ongoing debate over gun rights…one thing I will say is, is that our rights are given to us by Our Creator, and the Constitution is only a safe-guard to protect our rights from being taken away. In other words, against tyranny.
    And the 2nd Amendment basically ensures all of the Constitution stay intact.

    So why do we find so many bad things happening by people with guns? (This is a little lesson for libs, if you will). Well, basically the one thing that most murders with guns have in common, most all, about 99.9% of gun related violence, and that is drugs…I repeat…Drugs. The guns did not make them criminals…in their pursuit for drugs, they would have resorted to anything at their disposal to commit an act of violence, even if they had no access to guns. I personally would suggest the following…2 things…

    1. Do a major crackdown on drugs. A huge campaign to end the usage of drugs for purposes other than illness. Drugs are contributing more to violence than anything else in this entire country. And it needs to stop.

    2. Do a major shift in policy regarding the punishment for crime. No more of this lengthy trial business. Because it only fills the hearts of men to do more evil and think they can get by scott free. I personally would bring back public hanging and electrocution. Public execution of criminals who have committed murders. And this will send a strong message that criminality in the form of murder will not stand.

    But one step at a time. Start with the drugs first. Then we can move to policy regarding punishment for criminals. But drugs, my friends, are the driving force behind criminality. Most of the criminality in this country has that one thing in common with those crimes, and that is drugs, anti-depressants of various types and strengths, and newer ones are coming out on the market that have far greater side-effects. Not only do they cause people to do bad things, but that’s what’s wrong with half of our society. They are ruining the lives of young people everywhere. You can take an otherwise healthy minded person, put him or her on drugs for six months, take him or her off of them and within 6 six weeks they are likely to have committed a crime because of the withdrawal effects of that drug. The chemistry of the mind is changed because of those drugs, and the stressors of life become unbearable. I take them, I take paxil, and as long as I take the medicine the way I’m supposed to, I am fine, but if I go off of them, life seems so unbearable…the emotional effects of withdrawal are so extreme that you can hardly describe it. These are powerful medicines, and they are not something that should be on the streets of America to get as you please. They belong only in the hands of certified physicians who deal directly the psychological patient as a whole.
    This is serious business. And if we do not stop these psycho-therapeutic drugs from entering the black market, we are likely to have much greater tragedies in the future.

    Another aspect of the drug problem is welfare and government entitlements are fueling the drug problem. These entitlements are enabling the illegal sale and buying of these drugs. Entitlements are making the drug lords rich, while destroying the lives of the recipients of their illegal products.

    Again, it is not the guns that make them criminals…it is the mind of the individual, and the drugs they use to alter the chemistry of their brain that causes them to do bad things.

    Please stop the illegal drug market!

  9. Retired Spook April 8, 2013 / 8:00 am

    Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a couple days ago that describes the disconnect between Liberals and Conservatives in higher education. The more I read about what’s going on in our educational system, and particularly at the college level, the more I realize why very few of the Liberals who have frequented this blog over the years have been able to articulate coherent ideas WRT governance and politics. That inability reflects an education in which they’ve been indoctrinated on what to think rather than be taught HOW to think. If the pendulum can be swing back the other way, it’s going to take several generations to reverse the damage that Progressivism has done to this country, and, given how firmly entrenched the Left is in all levels of education, that’s a pretty big “if”.

    • neocon01 April 8, 2013 / 9:03 am

      Bottom line is DEMOGRAPHICS and weapons…..but HEY this is borak’s amerika and we cant talk about such things RAAAAAAAACISM dontcha know.

      waspstooge and reekO answer the question , would you accept the same kind of background checks, registration and licenses for voting?

    • neocon01 April 8, 2013 / 9:06 am

      Spook

      most of the mush head’s coming out of college have been raised by women only, the shiite poured into their “brains” by these so called educators are not balanced by a real male dominance. Thus we have the idiot savants who have college degrees and the day to day intelligence of fleas.

      • neocon01 April 8, 2013 / 9:13 am

        the destruction of America continues

        Off Course
        Bill Schanefelt

        As ex-Speaker Pelosi inelegantly forecast, now that Obamacare is law, we are learning what is in it, including substantial opportunities for identity theft.

        Our eyes and sensibilities are being burned regularly as the many layers of that odious and acrid onion are peeled back and we are confronted with more of the horrors that lie within it.

        Just this last week it was revealed that:

        Tens of thousands of health care professionals, union workers and community activists (will be) hired as “navigators” to help Americans choose Obamacare options….(and) provide free translators for those not fluent in English — no matter what their native language is.

        These “navigators” will earn “an estimated pay of $20-$48 an hour.”

        But that might not be the worst of it.

        http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/off_course.html

      • neocon01 April 8, 2013 / 9:37 am

        We all know that guns can cost lives because the media repeat this message endlessly, as if we could not figure it out for ourselves. But even someone who reads newspapers regularly and watches numerous television newscasts may never learn that guns also save lives — much less see any hard facts comparing how many lives are lost and how many are saved.

        But that trade-off is the real issue, not the Second Amendment or the National Rifle Association, which so many in the media obsess about. If guns cost more lives than they save, we can always repeal the Second Amendment. But if guns save more lives than they cost, we need to know that, instead of spending time demonizing the National Rifle Association.

        http://bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/guns-save-lives/article_82063096-9b0e-11e2-9e14-001a4bcf887a.html

    • Jeremiah April 8, 2013 / 10:46 pm

      A big if is right, Spook.
      It seems here as of late that everyone that I come into contact with is talking about the disaster of this administration, some of which are die-hard liberals. I think they’ve woke up a little too late.

      There’s some major things about to happen, with the economy and all ready to collapse. I’ve never in my life heard of as many jobs being lost in the last month, and it’s very grim looking into the future for jobs.

    • ricorun April 11, 2013 / 9:56 pm

      Spook: That inability reflects an education in which they’ve been indoctrinated on what to think rather than be taught HOW to think.

      And you offer THAT article as an example??!! Jeepers.

  10. Jeremiah April 8, 2013 / 11:00 pm

    LOL…I can’t help but laugh at Vladimir Putin’s visit to Amsterdam. That was comical as heck! ROTFL!!

  11. rustybrown2012 April 9, 2013 / 1:37 am

    Welcome liberals? LOL!

    • Retired Spook April 9, 2013 / 9:32 am

      Liberals have always been welcome here, Rusty. I love to debate people with whom I disagree.

      • ricorun April 11, 2013 / 9:59 pm

        Yeah, right.

      • Amazona April 12, 2013 / 10:34 am

        rico, I have seen Spook try to engage Liberals and squishies alike in actual discourse, only to have them/you wriggle off into vague and often quite wordy evasions.

        Just because they/you evade debate based upon ideas and facts doesn’t mean no one would like to participate in such a debate.

        i remember challenging casper to such a debate, and watching him spend several posts trying to set up discussion according to high school debate rules—a patently transparent effort to avoid having to actually present and then analyze a political belief or policy.

        You choose to quibble over semantics, and vigorously defend what you call “pragmatism”, which is so obviously nothing but the inability or refusal to commit to an objective political philosophy. You stake out your territory and then redefine everything to fit into your template. I’ve been down that road with you far too often, and now just skim over your verbiage, knowing it is nothing but fluff.

  12. mitchethekid April 9, 2013 / 1:45 am

    There is no reply option under your response Mark, but “to ban someone”? These words coming from a serial “banner” such as yourself? Are you insane? You cannot tolerate any conflicting point of view. Period, and this is based on 9 yrs of experience with attempting to have a rational converstion with you. It’s your way or the highway pal. I find it an insult to my sense of indignity and to my intelligence that you would suddenly hide behind the assumption that you; and you alone are privy to “facts”. “Facts” are imuntable. They exist, impervious to any opinion or perpseptive. No amount of manipulation or subjective interpretaion can alter their substance so please, don’t shape shift in a futile attempt to convolute your attitudes. You: as a person, have a very difficult time in reconciling your sensory input with what you want to believe, how you wish the reality of the world was and your overpowering insistence that the ideologies you hold so dear are absolute, fundemental truth. And believe me, I understand. In a very real way, I sympathise with your plight. But when I was going through the process of self examination I was a teenager and it ended in my mid 20’s. I became; well, more evolved. It’s a stiff branch that breaks in a breeze. I think you are well read in certain areas. I think you have a perspective to offer, but you are also a theocrat, an absolutist and an authortarian and the insistence you have to the redemption of an imagined fragile and ultimately tragic failure of the human condition is rooted in personal sadness that you, thus far, have been incapable of extricating yourself from. And I would like to offer my assistence. Extend a hand of friendship. Help to pull you out of the quicksand of your malaise.
    If I’m wrong, so be it. Your reaction to my thoughts will tell all who follow this blog just what comprises your character. When I was a kid I loved being put into empty cardboard boxes. Because it was so much fun to burst out of them.
    I hope you can revel in the same mindless joy.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 9, 2013 / 9:19 am

      Period, and this is based on 9 yrs of experience with attempting to have a rational converstion with you.

      “Rational conversation”? LOL! Do you read your own posts, MItche?

    • tiredoflibbs April 9, 2013 / 9:38 am

      Mitchie, your posts have not been removed because of your disagreement and different opinion. It is simply because you are an ass and nobody will accept your indictinated answers and parroted talking points that you attack because of their belief, age or political affiliation.

      There is no reasoning with you who are so rigid and incapable of processing the written word outside of your narrow views.

      Your constant repeating of lies and half truths despite facts to the contrary will not make your mindless reputations truth.

      • mitchethekid April 9, 2013 / 1:02 pm

        What does the word indictinated mean? Of all who post here, it is you who consistently use the exact same words and phrases. Dumbed down talking points and drones. It’s boring. Expand your vocabulary. You might have more tools to express yourself. You must have a very low opinion of people to assume that anyone who has an alternate point of view is an ass, (that’s real descriptive) or that they are the recipients of information given to them by a mysterious group of mind control Zen masters. But hey, I give up. You’ve succeeded in outing me. I am the mouthpiece for the Illuminati. And you, tiredoflibs are not a moderator.

      • tiredoflibbs April 9, 2013 / 1:14 pm

        “Expand your vocabulary”
        Classic mitchie. Mitchie why change want perfectly and accurately describes you? Never mind that you do repeat the same lies over and over despite the facts presented that debunks your mindless regurgitations. obAMATEUR gets up there at the podium and repeats the same thing over and over. Are you as concerned? Nope. You gladly parrot it without thinking! This may be boring but it is correct. It is no wonder you fall so easily to charisma and crafted excitement that is Obama rather than for a leader. If you we’re in 1939 Germany, you would still be the mindless dupe you are today.

      • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 4:29 pm

        tired

        BINGO!!

    • neocon01 April 11, 2013 / 8:54 am

      bmitchtheKID

      When I was a kid I loved being put into empty cardboard boxes.

      OMG……..ha ha ha ha ha ha……..ROTFLMAO, were you dropped on your head as a toddler??

      PS
      id gladly stuff you in a BOX!

    • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 9:09 am

      blowzo

      it appears he isnt and he is.

    • Retired Spook April 9, 2013 / 9:24 am

      I’m not an idiot.

      I would tend to agree he’s not an idiot — just ignorant and uninformed. The issue of global warming/climate change goes back to the late 70’s or early 80’s. The public debate on it heated up (pun intended) in the summer of 1988. There is less evidence that human activity plays a significant role in climate change today than there was 25 years ago. And, as was recently revealed, the evidence presented 25 years ago turned out to be largely manipulated and fraudulent. So I’m curious as to how long alarmists will continue to believe this hoax. Will it take 50 years? 100 years?

      • bozo April 10, 2013 / 1:54 am

        This is always a fascinating argument to me. It’s almost like science is being regarded in religious terms as infallible and unchanging. What science knew about anything 25 years ago, the cosmos, medicine, physics, meteorology, is only relevant for historical perspective purposes. If in the time between 1988 and now nothing new has been measured or discovered, then it stands as best information. But when new discoveries, better measuring devices, greater computer modeling power and millions of research hours improve the knowledge base significantly, arguing as if 1988 knowledge is equal to 2013 knowledge seems odd.

        The ability to measure and model has improved by exponential orders of magnitude since Ronnie Reagan retired, who, btw, was quite the global warming alarmist by modern standards.

        Excerpt:

        June 1, 1988

        In accordance with the understanding reached during the U.S.-Soviet summit meeting in Geneva in November 1985, and confirmed at the Washington summit in December 1987, Ronald W. Reagan, President of the United States of America, and Mikhail S. Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, met in Moscow May 29 – June 2, 1988.

        […]

        Global Climate and Environmental Change Initiative

        The two leaders expressed their satisfaction with activities since the Washington summit in expanding cooperation with respect to global climate and environmental change, including in areas of mutual concern relating to environmental protection, such as protection and conservation of stratospheric ozone and a possible global warming trend. They emphasized their desire to make more active use of the unique opportunities afforded by the space programs of the two countries to conduct global monitoring of the environment and the ecology of the Earth’s land, oceans and atmosphere. They underscored the need to continue to promote both bilateral and multilateral cooperation in this important area in the future.

      • neocon01 April 10, 2013 / 8:45 am

        blowzo

        a *********possible global warming************

        balderdash!!

      • neocon01 April 10, 2013 / 8:46 am

        Blowzo

        here is the REAL SCIENCE……HISTORY!!

        US Mid West

        1. T-Rex
        2. Ice Glaciers
        3. temperate.

        END of the story!!

      • Retired Spook April 10, 2013 / 9:15 am

        It’s almost like science is being regarded in religious terms as infallible and unchanging

        Bozo, actually that’s a fairly accurate description of how the Left looks at global warming. At some point one side is going to have to admit to being wrong. Well, maybe not, as Liberals rarely admit to being wrong — they just invent a new crisis and wash, rinse and repeat. BTW, it’s perfectly fine with me if you want to believe that man has the ability and power to change global weather and climate. Kind of your substitute for believing in God, I guess.

      • Amazona April 12, 2013 / 10:58 am

        The Left is either incapable of, or disinclined to, separate the two very different concepts of the earth going through spells of increasing temperature and the possible influence of man on these fluctuations.

        It’s either a form of ignorance or of purposeful semantic infiltration.

        Yes, there is global warming. No one can deny that. No one tries to deny that. It’s pretty obvious.

        Yes, there is the possibility that the effects of modern civilization might—MIGHT—have some impact on the temperature of the globe. This would certainly be something of interest. I have no problem with investigation into whether or not human activity influences long term climate and even into whether this poses a danger or is a benefit. Knowledge is good.

        But here we reach the fork in the road, because one road would lead to calm, rational, objective research with no preordained emotional or political agenda, and the other to hysterical, emotion-driven, politically motivated and unscientific manipulation of data to achieve preordained goals.

        In one direction lies the calm, rational voice saying “Let’s weigh the benefits of a slightly higher global temperature against any dangers, let’s do some serious evaluation of what MIGHT be done to mitigate the impact of human activity if and when we determine it is leading to a negative outcome, let’s take an equally serious and detailed look at global history and the ability of the earth to heal itself and come back from what looked like near-fatal incidents.”

        In the other are the shrill, hysterical voices of doom, squalling about “CITIES UNDER WATER !!!!!!!!” and “ICE MELTING !!!!!!!!” and “POLAR BEARS DROWNING !!!!!!!!” OK, this would all be pretty scary, except for the fact that these hysterics are contradicted by fact, and supported only by manipulated “proofs”—-the carefully cropped photo of polar bears on a tiny ice floe, not showing the massive ice bench just a couple of hundred yards away, the omission of information about increasing ice in some areas while it decreases in others, etc.

        And accompanying the hysterical hyperbole, hard on its heels, we find the political and economic agendas. Oh, the howling mobs are too wound up to notice, but others do—the billions to be made by opportunists such as Algore, in trading carbon credits, the vast increase in government size, scope and power when it is given permission to participate in so many new areas of human endeavor, etc.

        It’s very hard for someone who has been an eager and willing member of one of these howling mobs to step back and say “You know, I might have been a little premature in my embrace of this whole portrait of climate change. I think I’ll take another look at the REAL other side of the issue, and stop squealing that to even have a different perspective is proof of idiocy, denial of science, etc.”

        This is why so few have, and why the clown probably never will. The howling mob, and its internal validation of vitriol against those who disagree, is his comfort zone.

      • Amazona April 12, 2013 / 11:11 am

        ….. more active use of the unique opportunities afforded by the space programs of the two countries to conduct global monitoring of the environment and the ecology of the Earth’s land, oceans and atmosphere…. and …..the need to continue to promote both bilateral and multilateral cooperation in this important area in the future…. say absolutely nothing about anything but looking into, and I quote, …a POSSIBLE global warming TREND…

        In other words, it is a calm and reasoned suggestion that using our technology to understand things we have previously only been able to observe, such as temperature fluctuations on the globe, would be a good thing.

        Again, I suggest that that is a good thing.

        I also suggest that protections of the environment are good. I am all for recycling, reducing the use of chemicals that get into ground water, filtering emissions so fewer toxins are released into the atmosphere, etc. This is simply good housekeeping. As we develop the means to clean things up, we should apply them.

        My problem, and I think the problem to so many others, is the wild-eyed religious zealotry that marks so many of those who are on the AGW train. These are not just good ideas, these are CAUSES—and anyone not fully on board in every way with one of these causes is, well, a moron and immoral and despicable, etc. etc.

Comments are closed.