Who-Ahh He's Decided...
Will it be a rerun? Damn, lets hope not. America can't stand yet afford another war or a financial meltdown.
Illinois Democrats Move To Tighten Firearm Regulation/Restrictions...
by: Les Carpenter Rational Nation USA Liberty -vs- Tyranny As the country struggles to understand, and come to grips with random acts of firearm violence by unstable and unbalanced individuals Illinois is already taking action to further regulate firearms. Like the millions of law abiding citizens I am torn between the right to bear firearms and finding the point at which it makes logical sense to restrict that right. In a modern society in which the tools of warfare are advanced beyond what the founders could possibly have envisioned, and the efficiency of modern armies are such that the citizens would stand no reasonable chance against the modern army, does the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons have any real purpose for the homeowner and sportsman? If deemed they do should they not be highly regulated and restricted to HELP reduce the incidents of tragedies like Sandy Hook? I certainly do not have the answers, nor do I believe the anti-gun crowd has the answers eith...
Flush the dynasties. How would you like, say, a Rand Paul vs Bernie Sanders matchup?
ReplyDeleteAt least we'd get ab honest contrast.
DeleteBush presidencies: 2. Clinton presidencies: 1. No "dynasties" (plural), just one dynasty (singular). I'm in agreement with "flushing" this singular dynasty. The GOP nominee ain't going to be Randal, however. I will eat MY hat if the voters select him.
Delete"Bush presidencies: 2. Clinton presidencies: 1. No "dynasties" (plural), just one dynasty (singular)."
DeleteYou do realize, though, that if Hillary were elected, there'd be 2 Clinton presidencies.
....which meets the dynasty criterion in your statement.
Which makes the discussion of two dynasties spot-on....
And whether or not someone actually favors this or that dynasty depends on partisanship.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious dmarks. Some just need a bit more explanation I guess.
DeleteI'm all for flushing the system of dynastic possibilities as well as special interests; especially the big money and power interests.
Hillary is a Clinton by marriage, not by birth. And it has happened in other countries - the first female president was the wife of a former president. That our first female president might be the wife of a former president is not surprising at all. Frankly, I think this objection based on "dynasties" might be (for some) a convienent way to disguise their misogyny.
DeleteAnyway, was dmarks complaining about dynasties when gwb ran the first time? I bet not.
I think this objection based on "dynasties" might be (for some) a convienent way to disguise their misogyny.
DeleteAlways thinking the worst of your fellow man Dervish. Hmm.
As for me, give me a qualified and effective women with a track record of true success and she WILL have my vote. Hillary just ain't her as she CAN NOT be trusted.
I think we are much more likely to see die-hard HRC defenders attempt to deflect all criticism of her (including that which is sound, principled, and not gender based at all) as "misogynistic" than we are to see actual misogynistic criticism of her.
DeleteMr. Sanders asked: "Anyway, was dmarks complaining about dynasties when gwb ran the first time? I bet not.
Irrelevant. I am "complaining" about Jeb Bush being of a dynasty right now, along with the Clinton dynasty. Consistent and non-partisan.
I'm not sure that Democrats complained about a dynasty either.
DeleteNot irrelative. When gwb ran his father had already been president. There was a bush dynasty before there was a question of a potential Clinton dynasty. And dmarks was fine with it then, which is obviously quite inconsistent.
DeleteMe thinking whatever about my fellow man does not change reality. Rightwing hate groups rose with the election of Obama. I expect a misogynistic response to Hillary running based on what happened with Obama. What dmarks believes is "much more likely" is how some of those doing the critizing will spin their misogyny. We saw (and are still seeing) this with Obama... Right wingers lying about the Left categorizing all disagreement as racism.
A refreshing one, too.
ReplyDeleteWe need to be all in for H. She is going to pay for college, raise wages, provide jobs, free healthcare and worry about paying for it later, maybe when Chelsie is president. She can relate to the middle class because she is worth less than a billion, not much but less.
ReplyDeletejeb is a good candidate who ran a solid state. He does have experience but has the wrong name.
And this comment of yours skudrunner is EXACTLY why SERIOUS folks don't take you seriously. It is right wing boilerplate and hyperbole.
DeleteDiscuss Jeb's record, his statements against his record, his ties to special interests or his lack thereof.
We know what is brother brought America and it wasn't good; his 912 response excluded (except for the PA).
He may be a "good" candidate, but would he make a good president? Hopefully informed and intelligent folks carry the day.
Boilerplate and hyperbole to hell.
You don't hear boiler-plate (that's the current buzz-word, after neo-feudilism) coming from Hillary, Bernie Sanders (dude's a frigging socialist, for Christ sakes!), Elizabeth Warren, etc.? It seems to me as if the only sane people who might be running on that side are Jimmy Webb and that Schweitzer fellow from Montana.
DeleteDidn't say that now did I? But it's not my concern to at this point to throw stones at the democrats as there are plenty doing that already. You I include in that group.
DeleteSee Will, here's the thing for me, Libertarians and conservatives (that has been me for years) really need to open their eyes and clean up THEIR own act and be honest and forthright with the America people. The hypocrisy of the party I was once a member of and vice chair of my town's republican committee saddens me and so I criticize them.
When a libertarian or republican surfaces that is honest and trustworthy my focus will changem
With Bush we would get all the same crowd that were around the prior Bushes. The advisers, regulatory heads, judges, brass, you name it. Surely that prospect should alarm anyone. At Least with Clinton we'd have a slightly higher class of functionaries.
DeleteJMJ
Will, I've met the Ex Gov Schweitzer from Montana... and I like him. And he speaks Arabic, fluently... maybe that might be useful these days. I also like Webb. I'd be comfortable with either one.
DeleteI for one, did not think this comment from Skud was "boilerplate." He's got a real point. Hillary shared no plan at all on how to pay for all the stuff she believes the people of America deserve. I for one would like to see that plan.
After re-reading skudronner's comment you are right Dave, i'd like to hear to hear as well.
DeleteI guess I tire of his constant sarcasm.
A Wall Street transaction tax could bring in a lot of money, as well tamp down on speculation.
DeleteAs for Senator Sanders being a Democratic Socialist, this should work to his advantage, IMO. But some (including Will) have demonized the word so that many uniformed people do view it negatively... which is exactly what the plutocrats want.
Bush on Hannity tonight. Same ole same ole. More spending on military (yup, neo con), cut taxes (bro did that), reduce spending (nope, bro didn't' do that), increase growth to 4% (maybe just before a crash like bro)... breathe and repeat.
ReplyDeleteNothing new. Typical repub boilerplate talking points. More of same to come.
Hannity being Hannity, no more need be said.
ReplyDeleteAnd he pronounces the word "all" with 4 or 5 syllables.
DeletePass the salt, pepper, cumin, coriander, dill weed, fenugreek, turmeric, and mustard. It seems as if I have some ingesting to do.
ReplyDeleteOur hats are still easier to chew than the Arby's brisket sandwich, Will.
DeleteDon't forget the garlic.
ReplyDeleteDamn it, you're right.
ReplyDelete