One Utah

June 25th, 2008 by Cliff Lyon Cliff Lyon

Take Care while I’m Gone

Hi Folks,

I’m off to a remote island in the Atlantic without power (or Internet) for 10 days. Larry, I’ve made you an admin too.

In my absence please try to maintain a level of antagonism and indignation commensurate with the high crimes, many misdemeanors and treason toward the administration and the few sick people who still support them.

Take care!

Share and Enjoy:

This entry was posted Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 at 4:50 pm and is filed under This Blog. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

46 Responses to “Take Care while I’m Gone”

Tom Grover Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Have fun, Cliff.

Remember who you are, what you stand for and all that good stuff.
Ken Bingham Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Cliff

You are not going to be here for the reaction to tomorrows Supreme Court decision on whether individuals have a Constitutional right to bear firearms. There is no telling how the Supremes will rule. We have 4 staunch liberals, 4 staunch conservatives and one Anthony Kennedy who has been siding with the liberals a lot this term. If Anthony Kennedy is the 5th vote to ban guns then Ronald Reagan will spin in his grave.

If SCOTUS bans guns it will make the aftermath of Roe vs Wade seem minor in comparison to the Hell it will unleash on this country. If the Supreme Court rules that individuals do not have the right to own guns it will tear this country apart in a way that has not been seen since before the civil war.
Jobu Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Cliff,

Without your frequent posts, I am going to have a hard time staying bitter.
Richard Warnick Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 7:07 am
You’ll miss all the indignation over the Supreme Court’s gun rights decision, the FISA fiasco in Congress, etc. but hey, that’s probably a good thing. Ten days without electricity can be very restorative.

Update: Ken can relax, the Supreme Court has revised the Bill of Rights to include a right to own guns. We still don’t have a Constitutional right to own anything else, but guns are sacred!
Bob S. Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Richard,

Read the opinion! The Supreme did not Revise the Bill of Rights.

You are right that we don’t have a constitutional right to own anything, we have that right regardless of the constitution. Please think about that, are you saying we only have rights if the constitution gives them to us?

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about a right to breathe, does that mean we can’t breathe if the government doesn’t want us to?

The ruling affirmed

The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms,

The Constitution doesn’t provide any rights, it keeps the government from trampling on our rights. This is a big win for the individuals versus the government.

More later.
Anonymous Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 7:41 am
The government has powers, the People have inalienable rights.

The government can only operate from the powers prescribed to it. The Constitution defines the limits of governments power, and the scope of the Peoples’ inalienable rights.
Ken Bingham Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed our founding fathers wisdom that we all have a God given right to defend ourselves. That self defense is the 1st a primary right above all others and that an individual can carry a weapon to protect themselves from both the criminal element and a potential repressive government.

As I predicted Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote. This time he chose to go the way of freedom instead of tyranny, unlike the evil usurpers of freedom Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter.

FREEDOM LIVES! for today
Bob S. Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Amen Anon,

From the decision:

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the

pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed

.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16

See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and selfpreservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140;

Just to stop the thoughts you have to belong to a national guard; the opinion reads:

Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a
Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary
interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that selfdefense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

Hmm, this sounds familiar to something that I said before:

Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in
violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection:….This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”).

This is probably going to cause quite a few headaches.

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns

Since law abiding citizens have been prevented from owning weapons like short barreled shotguns, it’s a paradox. Law abiding citizens can’t own something because the law prevents them from owning it because law abiding citizens don’t own it.
(I know it’s twisted, that’s what is going to cause the headaches) Many law abiding citizens own short barreled shot guns up until the Miller decision, I expect some challenges to those laws soon.

A sop to the gun control crowd

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

More to come
jdberger Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 9:52 am
A great day for Liberty.

Next step - tossing some of these ridiculous gun laws.

Starting with Chicago’s ban. Then California’s Assault Weapons ban.
Richard Warnick Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Some rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and others are not. I happen to think it’s insane to give individual gun ownership a place in our Constitution. The Second Amendment quite clearly refers to the need for state militias, and says nothing about any “ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.” There is no such thing, anyway.

Hey, I guess we’re all militiamen now. Pack your bags, we’re going to Iraq on the next National Guard deployment!
Bob S. Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Richard,

Yes, you are right. We are all militia personnel (stop being sexist-grin), that has always been the case. The decision also talks about the “organized militia” and the unorganized militia; the organized militia is the national guards- an institution created approximately 100 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights. How on earth could it refer to the national guard at the time of its ratification?

Read Scalia’s opinion, it clearly states that the militia is A reason, not the only reason. The right to self defense should not be enshrined in the Constitution, it exists and stands apart from anything that can be changed by law.

The 2nd amendment does not refer to a need for states militia. The free state refered to the political body as a whole, e.g. the right of people to be free. As in not a subject kingdom but a state in which the citizens could determine their fate, not be subject to the whims of a tyrant.

Read the decision, my analysis of Miller was spot on with the majority opinion also.

Let’s get back to the right of self defense, are you saying that people only have a right to defend themselves with their own bodies?
That a 110# female must stop a larger male rapist solely with her hands and feet?
How about someone like my father, an asthmatic with emphysema, should he be forced to stop a mugger barehanded?

Would you put up with the type of restrictions DC has on guns on any other right in the Bill of Rights?
Freedom to assemble only if you belong to some assembly already? A complete prohibition on one type of speech- say blogs–because newspapers are allowed. But of course the news papers have to be store with each page separately?

How about search and seizure? Habeas Corpus–let’s have the government decide who is authorized to petition the court to determine if they could be held? Wait, the same Supreme court held that “individuals” –all individuals–have that right but you want to say the 2nd applies only to an organized militia? Doesn’t make sense.

I have just started on the dissent, so I’ll save that for later.

Of course not, throughout history people have had a right to use tools to defend themselves. This is no different
John of Manchester Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 11:00 am
As we were.

The individual right is upheld, only logical considering history, which is how law concerning owning and using arms is made, and rights determined.

Now the rest of the rights that the federal government has illegally assumed are to be overturned and those inalienable rights returned to the People as well.

Richard, you are quite correct, there is no declared right to individual arms, it is inalienable, and not a right that our government has any right to rule upon. The inalienable right is outside the scope of the Federal government.

Upon the point of our Founders insurrection, bearing arms was the most important element in insuring the best outcome against tyranny. It works.

History and Rights….Sustained.
Larry Bergan Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 11:28 am
So now can I light up a doobie and listen to the Moody Blues, or is that too dangerous?
Richard Warnick Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Really, the argument is over. There’s a reason they call it the Supreme Court.

I mention the National Guard because it’s the present-day institution that most closely resembles the militias of old, which consisted of all males aged 16 to 60 (hence “militiamen”). Really, the Second Amendment has little or no relevance to the 21st Century. But Justice Scalia was not afraid to indulge in some judicial activism, and he has the last word.
Bob S. Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Richard,

This is what always surprises me about liberals- sorry, not trying to be confrontational- but stating what has been said over and over on this board; bear with me.

Liberals/Democrats mostly complain that a Republican president and or Congress are taking away our rights. (For what it’s worth, I agree often) So, what’s the most important right to maintain in case some future government decides to go too far?
The 2nd amendment! But do liberals support this one? For the most part no.

Why not fully support an amendment that protects our rights to decide to correct the government if it goes too far?

As far as the militia, look at natural disasters or riots as an example where the idea of militia still exists as it was meant to be. In Katrina, people banded together, with arms they provided for themselves, to keep looters, thieves and worse from attacking their community. In LA, during the Rodney King riots, again business owners used firearms to protect first themselves, then their businesses and finally the neighborhood. The government can’t and shouldn’t be everywhere. The National Guard can’t be everywhere.

The National Guard is a subset, a select portion of the militia. How about applying that to voters? Every citizen has a can cast a vote but most don’t. Does that mean only those that vote are citizens? Nope. Every citizen can vote but not every citizen has to be a member of a political party to cast a vote either. Same with the Guard, everyone can own a firearm but some choose to go further and be in an organization.

Some times even those who are supposed to be doing right are part of the problem. The days after the Civil War are a great example, should have the newly freed slaves not been given a chance to defend themselves? How about African Americans during the Civil Rights era? Read about the Deacons of Defense to see what the militia should be; a check on the power of the government.

Scalia did no judicial activism, he repeatedly showed that throughout history the right to keep and bear arms has been an individual one and associated with self defense.

Noticed that you didn’t address any of the comments about applying that type of argument to the other rights listed in the BOR. why not?

Because it doesn’t make sense to say only the 2nd protects the rights of states to have militias when every other usage of “the people” protects individual rights.
Richard Warnick Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Bob–

First of all, I don’t know what your definition of a “liberal” is but I’m a strict constructionist on the subject of the Constitution and I believe in stare decisis– unlike some allegedly conservative Supreme Court justices.

The wording of the Second Amendment and the meaning thereof has already been discussed here at great length.

You win today’s euphemism award for describing armed insurrection as a way to “correct the government if it goes too far.” That is not a realistic view of the world, to say the least. At best, it’s about 150 years out of date.
jdberger Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
First of all, I don’t know what your definition of a “liberal” is but I’m a strict constructionist on the subject of the Constitution and I believe in stare decisis– unlike some allegedly conservative Supreme Court justices.

So, Richard? You think that Brown v. Board of Education was a bad decision because it didn’t embrace the earlier ruling in Plessy?

Or is it only that you believe in stare decisis when it suits your purposes?
Anonymous Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Gee Larry (Sponge Bob), you are only hurting yourself. (Patrick)
Bob S. Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Richard,

I believe in “stare decisis” also but where has the individual right to keep and bear arms been addressed before by the SCOTUS?

In US v Miller? Again that decision supported the individual right but declared not all arms are protected by the 2nd amendment. I agree; nuclear weapons, biological, chemical, etc have small if any role in self defense and people were not expected to provide their own for militia use.

Thanks for the award, I thought it was a good turn of a phrase.

But I disagree that it’s out of date. Are you saying that IF Bush (with Congress’ support) decided tomorrow to round up all the registered Democrats; that it wouldn’t be time to push the reset button as some have described it? It is never out of date to have the citizens with the power to decide that a government has gone too far. I trust the citizens more than I trust the government.

Do you support the right of people to defend themselves against criminals?
Do you support the right of people to defend themselves against criminals cloaking themselves in the authority of government?

I’ve read repeatedly here that Bush and company are criminals, are trusting them and others to only tread on the rights they have so far? This is what I meant about not understanding the liberals. Those that protest Bush’s actions but firmly support removing the right to present an armed protest if necessary.
Albert O. Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Bob:

So I gather from what you are saying is the Supreme Court may yet be justified in deciding someday that the Heller decision is incorrect, at least insofar as the evolving standards and circumstances require. Good for you!
jdberger Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Hunter?
Ken Bingham Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

Limiting the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilians is what the Bill of Rights is all about!

Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter should be impeached and imprisoned for betraying their oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. They are traitors to our nation.
Bob S. Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Albert,

I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that if there were previous decisions stating the 2nd was a collective right, the SCOTUS - note not I- Ruled them wrong.

Any citations on previous decisions concerning a collective right?

As far as overturning it, that should be done on basis of law. Heller was decided on that basis.
To quote from today’s decision again

A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.
Albert O. Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Bob:

That makes no sense! What if the Heller decision were decided before the Roberts court and went the other way? Are you saying that you would live by an interpretation consistent with the dissent’s position?
Bob S. Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Albert,

Yes, I would if it was based on LAW. What is hard to understand about that? Some of us don’t decide what is right and wrong based on feelings.

I would live by the dissenting opinion and work my tail off getting the law changed. Just like I think we should live by the GITMO/Habeas decision and work to change it. I think that was wrong, but I abide by the law.
Richard Warnick Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
jdberger– stare decisis does not mean legal interpretations can never change. It means that there has to be a compelling reason to overturn precedent.

Bob S. — I have pointed out previously here that the majority opinion in United States v. Miller stated clearly that the Second Amendment must be interpreted in the context of militias. In other words, the Amendment is silent on the question of individual gun ownership.

IMHO today’s Supreme Court majority has read into the Second Amendment something that was never there before– but it’s there now, because of the power of the Supreme Court and judicial activism. As Justice Scalia likes to say, “So there!”
Bob S. Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Richard,

I discussed this in a posting that you never responded to about Miller.

Miller did not say there was no individual right, it stated not every firearm could be owned by an individual. A Huge difference, especially since it was predicated on faulty assumptions.

From today’s decision:

f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54

How about answer the simple questions I’ve asked about other uses of “the people” in the other Bill of Right amendments?

Is there only a collective right to petition the government for redress?
So an individual couldn’t sue for redress, but a city or county can?

How about freedom of the press?
Only a political entity can publish a newspaper? A trade group? A business?

Unreasonable search and seizure only protects crowds, not individuals?

In every other case of the use of “the people” it protects both the right of the individual and the right of the people as a group. How is the 2nd different?
Albert O. Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Bob:

If you think Boumediene is incorrect and can be changed, then you are saying that some day, the Heller decision may be overturned by a future SC.
Anonymous Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Cliff abandoned the battlefield…, what a day to do it.

It’s a great day in America.

This is great day. I’m thankful.
Richard Warnick Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Bob S. — Simple answer to a simple question. The Second Amendment clearly pertains to militias, therefore it protects a collective right from infringement by the federal government. I refer you to today’s editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s holding Thursday that the Second Amendment enshrines in the Constitution an individual right to keep firearms in the home outside the context of a state militia was wrongly decided and turned decades of settled judicial precedent on its head. No fair reading of the plain language of the amendment or its history could have reached the conclusion the court announced.

…Justice John Paul Stevens got it right in his dissent. He wrote that the Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people in the individual states to maintain a militia in response to concerns that the new Constitution gave Congress power to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army. That was viewed as an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the states. But neither the text of the amendment nor the arguments of its proponents give any evidence that it was intended to limit any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms, Justice Stevens wrote. “Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”
Bob S. Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Richard,

You still aren’t addressing the point: Name another Bill of Right amendment that provides the STATE with a Right?

Name another Bill of Right amendment that only protects a collective right?
Richard Warnick Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 8:23 am
The answer to your question is the Tenth Amendment, as I’m pretty sure I pointed out in an earlier discussion.

The Supreme Court re-interpreted the Second Amendment so that it now says what the Gun Lobby always claimed that it said. Why not take “yes” for an answer?
Bob S. Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Richard,

Read the words very carefully

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This clearly does not refer to a single RIGHT, but POWERS. Governments have powers and responsibilities, people have rights.

Nice try but completely wrong. Looking for things like right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, etc

Why not take yes for an answer, because the work is really just beginning. There are too many people like you and others that would still abridge my right to keep and bear arms. Read Mayor Fenty’s response to the ruling; is he appropriately responding or dragging his feet?

Has Chicago announced the city is repealing its gun ban?

Read the left stream media like the editorial and see how many people still don’t get the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
jdberger Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Richard,

Your repeated insistence that the 2A is a STATE right is baffling.

If it was a State right, why did the framers refer to “people”?

If it is a State right, why didn’t the Supreme Court dismiss Miller’s appeal for lack of standing (he never claimed he was a member of the Nat’l Guard)?

If the 2A is a State right, can States nullify Federal gun laws to equip their “milita”?

If the 2A refers to the National Guard, can the Federal Government call them up when they need them? What about the rights of the State?

Educate yourself, Richard. Read THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND STATES’ RIGHTS: A
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT by Reynolds and Kates.

Richard, your argument is full of holes. It doesn’t hold water. It’s a load of crap.

In the future, I recommend that you get your legal scholarship from better sources than third string editorial boards.
Albert O. Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 7:15 am
Yet another reason to round these bastards up and throw them in jail; and at the same time, give serious thought about what to do with the 29% (or is it 23% now?) who stubbornly continue to make excuses for the bastards:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/washington/01gitmo.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1214921227-GEavlk5AVVtRCyvAssl6sA

And yes, I am referring to you ….
Bob S. Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 7:28 am
Albert,

Let’s have a little experiment; You are now the elected Grand Poobah of the USA. How do you keep the country safe?

It’s easy to sit back and carp, complain, bitch and moan. Let’s see you put your ideas out there for everyone to critique.
Albert O. Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 7:47 am
Hmmm.

Maybe we could start with the idea I had several years ago - circa 2002 and 03 - not to invade Iraq; you know, when folks like you ( I am assuming) were caught up in the WMD and Saddam is in bed with Osama lies and misrepresentations and gunning for the invasion full steam ahead.

The chickens have been coming home to roost for a long time, Bob. Why do you continue to make apologies for the chimp and his criminal cohorts? Why did you allow your son to fight a war based on lies and misrepresentations? Those are the questions looking for answers!
Bob S. Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 7:57 am
Albert,

Those are not answers to the questions. We are in Iraq, we are in Afghanistan, we are in a war against global terror. How do you fight the war?

As for making excuses, I’m not. I call it like I see it. Often, I agree with people about the government activities needing to be investigated or curtailed. When I agree with government activities I say so. There are a few things the government is supposed to do; protecting its citizens is high on that list. That doesn’t make me an apologetic for Bush.

I don’t think that the war is based on lies and misrepresentations. I think that generally people try to do the best they can with what they have at the time. It’s very easy to look back in time and see the mistakes. Based in the information available at the time, I think the decision was right. The conduct of the war and the reconstruction was and is flawed, but the axiom is the military is always ready to fight the last war. Maybe Congress should have required the administration to present a plan for what to do with Iraq after we won. This could have been a part of the authorization they gave Bush to go to war….remember that Congress did authorize Bush, don’t you?

What you and others can’t stand is that I call out the Bush Derangement Syndrome so prominently displayed here. When Congress authorized the war and continues to fund it; why is it only Bush that takes the heat. If Congress wanted the war to stop it’s in their power.

You criticized Gitmo and how prisoners are detained, the hearings, etc. Let’s see some ideas of yours on how to run the war, on how to keep the country safe. Stop ragging on just Bush; as the old saying goes- you are either part of the solution or part of the problem.
jdberger Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 9:41 am
Hah!

I know one of the lawyers in that case (the Uighur one).
Larry Bergan Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Albert O:

“I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”

Reminds me of Bush’s statement:
(paraphrasing)

“In my line of work you have to say things over and over, to catapult the propaganda (applause from Bush’s base).”
Albert O. Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Larry:

With luck, Bush’s base will be a has-been following passage of the next few months. If not, then we may as well buy property in another country and let America go the way of Rome.

Folks who don’t make a $250,000 bucks a year (I previously said $600,000 per year) yet sill support Bush are just plain idiots!!

I really like Bob and jd, particularly because I doubt they make $250k per year; but, then again ….

I am just tired of stupid and susceptible people in America!!
Bob S. Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:14 am
Albert,

I can tell you that I don’t make 600K or even 250K a year. Working on getting to that point, but not now. My focus is getting my kids through high school and college with some semblance of an actual education and that is tough now days.

Why must someone who disagrees with your politics and sees things differently be an idiot? We have different philosophies, viewpoints and ideas about how to achieve what is best for the country. But that doesn’t make one person or another an idiot, calling names just shows an unwillingness to rationally discuss issues.
Albert O. Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:37 am
No, Bob.

Supporting GWB after everything he has done against the better interest of typical Americans - e.g., you and me - is irrational!
jdberger Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Albert,

Blaming all the problems of the world on one man is irrational. It’s also paranoid.

Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress. Why won’t they do anything to “stop Bush”? Why, instead, do they REINFORCE his policies?

Maybe it’s you, Albert.
Bob S. Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
JD,

Now I feel like your apprentice. Well said Sir.
jdberger Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:41 am
it’s not even sporting anymore. :(

Take Care while I’m Gone

46 Responses to “Take Care while I’m Gone”

Leave a Reply