‘President Rand Paul’ would have fired Hillary post-Benghazi

I have to remind myself that the senate is not quite as effed-up as it was when Preston Brooks basically started the Civil War when he bludgeoned another senator nearly to death.

But sometimes I think it ain’t far off.

• Link
• Report this comment

Speaking of the CIA, we had 7 American deaths in Africa so far without warning.

Did any pol call for a classified hearing on missing these attacks ?

If not, these pols failed on doing their job on oversight.

• Link
• Report this comment

IMO, Rand Paul is living, breathing evidence that *any* American kid can grow up and become someone important.

No matter how much of a sniveling little weasel he or she might actually happen to be.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If Rand Paul were President……..”

and if frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their azzes when they hopped.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gotta love the “questions” posed by politicians. At some point, I would be tempted to say, “Hey! Is there a who, what, when, where, or why coming also here?”

Two posts on Benghazi today. Easier to focus on work.

• Link
• Report this comment

He would have his supporters grab her on the sidewalk, rip the sign from her hand, push her face down on the ground and stand on her head. And one of them would be wearing a “Don’t Tread On Me” button while they did this. Because that’s how they roll.

• Link
• Report this comment

I saw where Rand was critical of Gov. Christie last week after Christie called the NRA’s ad about guns and the Obama kids despicable. Voice of insanity remains the norm for the Repulicans.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hopefully the Benghazi fiasco along with her poor health will help ensure they Hillary Clinton never, ever becomes POTUS.

• Link
• Report this comment

my bad–Preston Brook wasn’t a Senator, himself, but a Congrefsman. Who bludgeoned Sen. Sumner nearly to death with a club by approaching him from behind, and continuing to beat him while his buddy fended off people coming to Sumner’s aid by brandishing a pistol.

Because, you know, we’re all safer when people are armed.

• Link
• Report this comment

From David Kurtz:

Paul went as far as saying that had he been president he would have fired Clinton, while rattling off a few examples of State Department expenditures that he considers wasteful and frivolous.

It needs to be said that Paul doesn’t have much use for the State Department.

In his own budget proposal for 2011, which called for a half a trillion dollars in across the board spending cuts, Paul proposed a $20 billion cut to the State Department. By way of comparison, the State Department’s core budget for the 2013 fiscal year is $43.4 billion. You can see that provision of his budget at the bottom of the page here.

The U.S. security failures in Benghazi were serious. They shouldn’t be downplayed or dismissed. But you don’t have to pretend there wasn’t a State Department failure, in order to conclude that it takes a lot of nerve to sit there and rip a secretary over the decisions made about how and where to deploy security resources when not only is the department chronically underfunded and having to make do, but while you yourself have called for slashing the departments budget by nearly half. That’s not serious. And neither is Paul.

• Link
• Report this comment

Please, go nuclear, Senator Reid. These “men” deserve nothing less.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Fox “News” homepage, of course, is at Tardcon 5 over this. worth a peek if you don’t mind giving Rupert your click-thrus.

• Link
• Report this comment

she is incompetent and then has to cry for effect god what a bunch of liberal dribble

• Link
• Report this comment

Rand Paul is a buffoon, probably why so many Libertarians and GOPpers follow him.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, Mr. Paulie, you ain’t the President cause you are a LOSER. So, SUCK IT,you sexiest.

• Link
• Report this comment

decibels……those questions do they need to be asked? What’s your opinion? What are you insinuating? I went to the Fox News site and had to look a little to find what you were commenting about, I was expecting it to be big and bold, but started with Opinion about middle ways, three small lines down from the large headline under a large picture.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tardcon 5

LOL,good one DB!

• Link
• Report this comment

Democrats and Liberals…..you are disobeying President Obama…….stop the name calling!

• Link
• Report this comment

atl – yes, he xposed himself as incompetent.

• Link
• Report this comment

hillary clinton just vasty raised her approval rating. as for the approval rating of congress – do they have negative numbers in the ratings.

• Link
• Report this comment

“It is not inconceivable that the U.S. has assisted the flow of arms out of Libya and into Syria, although given how spectacularly wrong Fox has been proved to be on other anonymously sourced reports involving Benghazi, I wouldn’t give its reports a lot of credence.”

Thanks for at least admitting the U.S. is capable of malfeasance and corrupt behavior (when a Democrat is in the oval office).

“Given national security implications, I’m also not sure that Paul acted responsibly by raising the issue in a public hearing. If he was actually seeking information, rather than playing to the conspiracy crowd, he has more private means of getting answers as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He runs the risk of endangering U.S. lives by doing it in public, without apparently knowing the possible ramifications. I wonder what President Rand Paul would say about somebody who did that?”

Are you sure or aren’t you? The way you end your column you seem positively sure that Rand is running the “risk of endangering U.S. lives”. Do you mind showing how he is doing that? If, as you say, he is repeating what has already been published by various sites, what is he doing differently? And, if Clinton knew something that was a security concern, could she have not have asked to take that up in a non-public hearing?

But in any case, a fine way to deflect from Rand’s point that maybe she should have been fired for not being on top of things. 4 people are dead, after all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Just suppose if it was a republican administration and SoS………..

• Link
• Report this comment

Redcoat — “Just suppose if it was a republican administration and SoS………..”

You mean like Iran-Contra?

• Link
• Report this comment

Redcoat

January 23rd, 2013
1:34 pm

Just suppose if it was a republican administration and SoS………..
.
.
.
.
Ok….

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Rand Paul would still be a goof.

• Link
• Report this comment

I had no doubt that Hillary would crush the gop.

The only Senator that could compete with her in debate on foreign policy is our President.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rand Paul is an idiot. But then, so is any Objectivist.

• Link
• Report this comment

House approved three month debt limit extension.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dopes, those jr senators they are.

• Link
• Report this comment

president jay bookman would take everything from the producers and give all of it to the takers.

• Link
• Report this comment

The audible alarm for Tardcon 5 is the well-known whoop whoop whoop made by Curly of Three Stooges fame.

Thanks alot JHM.Now that alarm is going to be stuck in my head the rest of day!

• Link
• Report this comment

House CAVED on the debt ceiling. THAT is what happened.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scootter — “Thanks alot JHM.Now that alarm is going to be stuck in my head the rest of day!”

Nyuck nyuck nyuck.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yes, hunting down like obl.

The fight has moved to Africa.

Try to keep up con.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow, you progressives are bashing Rand Paul for stating that he would hold people accountable for their actions. Have we as a nation fell so much that our leaders should not be held accountable? It appears that you progressives do not like accountability.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Jesse Ventura, Al Franken (an SNL commedian? Really???), Marion Berry, David Duke, George Wallace, our very own Cynthia McKinney and so on”

How could you forget Ronald Reagan!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Uh, the *microchip guy* is chairing the State House committee on science and tech? Sorry, but that makes as much sense as making atheist me the official House chaplain.”

And Harry Reid as the Senate majority leader does make sense? American politics, it might be argued, is a comedy of errors.

• Link
• Report this comment

Looks like Hillary got some coaching before her ‘emotional’ hearing today, probably from the same team that helped Bubba with Monicagate.

• Link
• Report this comment

Who the heck is Rand Paul? What branch of the homegrown terrorist group(s) known as the “tea party’ (klansmen, skinheads, militia’s, birther’s, etc.,) is he affiliated with? Who elected this clown to Congress? What planet is he from to think someone will vote for him for President? Is he a GOP candidate for President in 2016?

The GOP still has not learned their lessons.

The American People…

• Link
• Report this comment

JAY

So your heroine is getting a bit roughed up under a cross examination? Sorry that gets your goat.

Seems if she didn’t read and take seriously messages regarding security concerns, her appointment should be scrutinized. Is there any dispute that she didn’t?

It is not inconceivable that the U.S. has assisted the flow of arms …

So even if it’s not inconcievable, based on track record, anything the other media wing suggests is not credible?

• Link
• Report this comment

Al Franken (an SNL commedian? Really?

Also the author of several bestselling (albeit humorous) political essay collections, and a radio show host for several years. If you’d ever actually listened to any of his radio shows, you’d know that he was not some political lightweight, but a guy who did his homework and asked pointed questions of his subjects.

Maybe that’s not much of a political resume, but it’s every bit as solid as any number of people you *didn’t* mention–and I daresay it’s as impressive as the pizza CEO that leapfrogged the Senate, and ran for President last year.

• Link
• Report this comment

red,

7 so far.

Why did the CIA miss it?

• Link
• Report this comment

the same team that helped Bubba with Monicagate

I do wonder if the online conservatives will EVER purge their inner fourth-grader and manage to engage in one (1) conversation about a Clinton without going to *that* well.

Jeez.

• Link
• Report this comment

Recon 0311 2533

January 23rd, 2013
1:50 pm

You just had to make a deposit in the punch bowl didn’t ya.

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier — “I am not going to defend Paul (or hardly any politician), but your opinion strikes me as less judicious than emotional.”

You think?

“Let’s consider some of those who have assumed political office in various capacities: Jesse Ventura,”

I was on a consulting gig in Tampa when Ventura was elected; as luck would have it, one of my fellow consultants was a nice fellow from a Minneapolis suburb who went out of his way to track down an Election Day copy of the Minneapolis Star- Tribune. Our conversation on the topic went like this:

JHM: WTF?

MN Guy: I have no %&@*&$ idea.

“Al Franken (an SNL commedian? Really???)”

I’ll raise you Iowa’s Fred Grandy (”Gopher” on The Love Boat.) At least Franken is funny, whereas Grandy was just funny-lookin.’

“Marion Berry, David Duke, George Wallace, our very own Cynthia McKinney and so on. American politics, it might be argued, is a comedy of errors.”

While consulting in the DC area about ten years ago, I suggested to my wife that I might attend a Mario Berry rally just for fun, carrying a “B!TCH SET ME UP” sign. She dissuaded me by asking if I had our State Farm agent’s phone number handy (I have a rather sizable life policy with them).

• Link
• Report this comment

I would vote for Rand over Chris Christie any day

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama runs for reelection and declars Al Qaeda all but a memory.

Al Qaeda attacks in Benghazi killing the ambassador. Video shows they attacked with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades.

What will we do, what will do, asks someone in the Barry camp?

Some nerd comes up with blaming it on a crowd pissed about a video no one has heard about.

Obama and Hillary buy into the lie, they set about selling the lie to America and the world.

Rice goes on the Sunday talk shows spreading the lie.

Obama speaks at the UN telling the world attack caused by video.

Obama/Hillary spend money for radio spots in the Arab world condemning the video.

Moonbats eat it up. Conservatives say, wait a minute.

The truck comes out, but Obama and his ligacy media propagandists brush it off. Fox is belittled.

Obama wins relection.

Hillary bumps head which conveniently postpones her having to testify at Congressional hearings.

Hillary declares when asked about blaming the video lie, what difference does it make.

Hillary and Barry get away with it.

Sickening

• Link
• Report this comment

kayaker 71

Proceed

Bless your heart

• Link
• Report this comment

td — “Wow, you progressives are bashing Rand Paul for stating that he would hold people accountable for their actions.”

No, I’m bashing him for being an arrogant pushy little dipspit.

• Link
• Report this comment

“HILLARY THROWS DOWN!
‘WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?’” HP

tapper on cnn finally asks about intel failure but the reason I voted for Hillary is she is a fighter that gives the gop hell.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mitt who was mocked was correct about Chrysler. He was called a liar by the real liars. Mitt who was mocked about Mali was correct. Events, news reports, and testimony vindicate him and the tragedy of dead Americans is further evidence (at this moment when Hilary squirms) of just how incompetent the Obama administration foreign policy is.
Rand Paul wasn’t *imagining.* Look up the meaning of subjunctive.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Maybe that’s not much of a political resume, but it’s every bit as solid as any number of people you *didn’t* mention–and I daresay it’s as impressive as the pizza CEO that leapfrogged the Senate, and ran for President last year.”

And almost as “solid” as Obama’s. I wasn’t impugning Franken’s intelligence, only his credentials and his previous “wackiness”. I guess by your response you would agree with me that we have set the proverbial “bar” pretty low for political candidates. Franken looks positively great compared with Ventura or Berry. But that, needless to say, is not saying a whole lot.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillary bumps head which conveniently postpones her having to testify

I really should’ve invested in tinfoil.

• Link
• Report this comment

Getalife…..the fight has moved to Africa….more American killed by terrorist since Benghazi….Clinton has kept up? I think she was in over her head………

• Link
• Report this comment

“BTW – Hillary can forget about winning the next presidential election. There is no way the sick pop culture electorate will vote an old looking woman into the White House. You live by pop culture, you fail by it.”

JohnnyR sure has a bad opinion of Americans. I’m surprised he stays here, what with the sick pop culture and all…

• Link
• Report this comment

J. Reb — “There is no way the sick pop culture electorate will vote an old looking woman into the White House.”

Yes, I hear the sexxay venture capitalist look is what’s hot right now. Mitt Romney was just a fashion trendsetter and WAY ahead of his time.

• Link
• Report this comment

TC @ 2.06, I had to look this but actually, Marion Berry had served several elective offices, first on the DC board of ed, then on the city council, before running for Mayor.

You & I may not care for the guy (and obviously he became a national punchline after saying “bitch set me up!”), but he did work his way through the ranks.

• Link
• Report this comment

JohnnyReb……Obama got reelected….remember….media will make her “cool” by then.

• Link
• Report this comment

2:11 should be Clinton/Pelosi 2016.

• Link
• Report this comment

92 killed at American embassies under Reagan.

33 killed at American embassies under Bush.

4 killed at American embassies under Obama.

This is a political witch hunt pure and simple. Its about all the GOP has left.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul certainly put her in her place. He showed how inept she was and to her credit she sat there and took it. She also admitted how she failed. I’m pretty sure she’s not running fro President after this….

• Link
• Report this comment

Rand compares this to 911. Rand is a moron.

• Link
• Report this comment

Who is to day that John Kerry is going to be any better? It takes a certain person to be SOS, forthright, honest, tough and smart along with being somewhat independent of the President and the rest of his cabinet. No doubt, the President sets a foreign policy agenda but the SOS has to be cunning and shrewd in her dealings with other government heads of state. Credibility is must and she certainly lost hers in this Libya cluster****. Bozo was right on one thing…… keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

• Link
• Report this comment

Joe Mama – Americans think older men look distinguished. They think old women look, well, old. If you don’t think that would affect politics, you are not as smart as I had given you credit.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I wonder what President Rand Paul would say about somebody who did that?”

Hopefully, President Rand Paul would say “I am going to fire myself.”

The guy goes fishing for what’s most likely classified information in a public, televised forum.

Loser.

Hey Recon!

Didja’ see jay’s 2:01 response to your 1:41?

What’s that word for what he did to your assertion?

I know!

Decimate!

• Link
• Report this comment

At least she will be gone and her replacement is one of those old white guys.

• Link
• Report this comment

offtopic

Towncrier

Some evening when things have died down (or degenerated) you might want to engage josef on the topic of languages. I think you’d enjoy it.

• Link
• Report this comment

” Americans think older men look distinguished. They think old women look, well, old. If you don’t think that would affect politics, you are not as smart as I had given you credit”

JReb – You need to hang out with a better quality of Americans!

• Link
• Report this comment

What’s wrong with old white guys? Answer, nothing. They among other things made this country into your present enjoyment. Were they perfect doing so? No. Did they make mistakes? Yes. But they got the job done. That’s more than I can see from others.

• Link
• Report this comment

Romney’s Lie of the Year was true? weetamoe – please cite your source. This is the second time I’ve seen this posted without a source citation.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Somehow, Recon seems to have wiped all that from his memory banks.”

I guess Jay missed the conversation yesterday about “WORMs” for brains: Write Once Read Many

Once it’s written into the memory banks, it can’t ever be changed because those banks can only be written to ONCE

• Link
• Report this comment

“No actually your a moron.”

Funniest post of the thread!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Bless your little Liberal hearts, we understand that most regrettably liberalisim inherently includes naivety.

• Link
• Report this comment

Americans think older men look distinguished. They think old women look, well, old. If you don’t think that would affect politics, you are not as smart as I had given you credit

Well, I might not be a Norman Einsteen, but even I know better than to say something like that in front of the missus. Now at least I know this guy ain’t married. Or else he’s praying his wife don’t connect his handle to him.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey Itchy, do your fingers always flail so freely. Moron.

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier — “Very funny stuff. Thanks for making me smile!”

One good thing about working in the DC area is that there’s no shortage of cultural events and appearances by an unending variety of performers and other artists. I didn’t go to the Marion Berry rally, but I *did* end up attending an appearance and book signing by P. J. O’Rourke, who is quite friendly, personable and approachable; not at all the raging alcoholic wastrel you might think him to be if you’d read many of his books.

• Link
• Report this comment

“JReb – You need to hang out with a better quality of Americans!”

He would have to stop hanging out on this blog first

• Link
• Report this comment

Just saw a snide dismissal of Cain as a *Pizza CEO.* He was also [...] a Federal Reserve regional supervisor

Actually, while I meant nothing insulting by that characterization–rather, that his public office background seemed nonexistent–I did not know about his Federal Reserve supervisory role. I dug a bit…

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/10/herman_cain_s_fed_years_what_did_he_actually_do_.html

and, well–

What does the board of directors actually do? Every month that Cain was there, board members would meet, talk through the economic developments and data in their areas, and offer some advice. Fed economists would listen. The research would be taken up to Kansas City Fed President Tom Hoenig, who could use it however he deigned to use it.* “They’re a source of economic information for the bank,” explains Bill Medley, public information director for the Kansas City Fed. What’s their single biggest contribution? They recommend the discount rate, or what the Fed charges for loans. “But that,” says Medley, “has to be approved by the board of governors.”

Was Cain just some naïf in the ways of high-level Fed policy? Sure. That was the point. His fellow board members would include the head of a petroleum company, a Kansas City housing advocate, and an Oklahoma cattle magnate. Bill McQuillan, the chairman of CNB National Bank in Greeley, Neb., overlapped with Cain for three years and shared “puddle jumper” planes with him when they needed to go to the monthly meetings.

• Link
• Report this comment

Harry Reid- Obama speaks well. He doesn’t have that “Negro” dialect.

• Link
• Report this comment

J. Reb — “Probably the only woman taken seriously in the Arab world was Thatcher and now the German prime minister whose name escapes me at the moment.”

Merkel.

You don’t believe that the Arab world took female leaders like Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto or Golda Meir seriously?

• Link
• Report this comment

“That line from Rand will be very entertaining if it is Rand v Hillary in 4 years”

It’s like Joe Scarborough said. Republicans are setting themselves up to lose the White House for as far out as anyone can see.

• Link
• Report this comment

J. Reb — “Joe Mama – Americans think older men look distinguished. They think old women look, well, old. If you don’t think that would affect politics, you are not as smart as I had given you credit.”

If you’re the sort of person to assign that much weight to gender and grooming, then you’re even less smart than I had given *you* credit for.

• Link
• Report this comment

What I find really amazing about a lot of the Conned comments is that “some” of them, the truly,truly horribly brain dead disfigured ones, actually BELIEVE with all their heart what they’re repeating, with verbose verbatim parroting drivel, is the absolute truth.

That is truly and sincerely sad. God bless their little bitty shriveled up hearts and minds.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay – who debunked the CBS News sources on AC-130’s stationed at NAS Sigonella?

• Link
• Report this comment

Rand vs Hillary?

Rand?

Hell why not carrot top vs Hillary?

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul certainly put her in her place. He showed how inept she was and to her credit she sat there and took it. She also admitted how she failed. I’m pretty sure she’s not running fro President after this….

Funny, I figure it’s stuff like this that might convince her that maybe her experience/expertise is needed, and that she should continue to serve her country in its highest office, rather than “merely” going off and generating googobs of cash for worthy non-profits and such. People sometimes get goaded into sticking around. This could be one of those times.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jerome Horwitz

Romney’s Lie of the Year was true? weetamoe – please cite your source. This is the second time I’ve seen this posted without a source citation.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2013/01/18/pants-fire-despite-media-outcry-romneys-lie-year-was-true

• Link
• Report this comment

What do you see from inside there, Itchy?

• Link
• Report this comment

But, but, but …………. Jay ………. it wasn’t even a “terrorist” attack !

• Link
• Report this comment

“Harry Reid has also been know to check his stories about as thoroughly as (according to our gracious host) Fox News. Remember this story, and how accurate it turned out to be?”

I don’t recall that Romney ever released 10 years of returns, so how do you know how “accurate” it is?

• Link
• Report this comment

Hell why not carrot top vs Hillary?

Or a 3 legged jackazz with half a tail.

Before you post it, I KNOW — I’ve just insulted all 3 legged jackazzes worldwide. I’m sure, once they hear about Rand Paul’s pontificating about such things as facts and reality; they’ll forigve me the comparison.

• Link
• Report this comment

Romney’s Lie of the Year was true? weetamoe – please cite your source. This is the second time I’ve seen this posted without a source citation.

Those are Jeeps that are going to be sold in China dummy. That was the case all along.

What Romney said was Jeeps sold in America would be made in China.

Not true at all.

Romney was lying.

• Link
• Report this comment

redefining and re characterizing…..she’s good

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier — “Surely the Democrats could do better than him as leader.”

I agree, but it’s the choice of Senate Democrats, not the people, that put him in that job.

With regard to him being corrupt, did you know that he’s portrayed in the movie Casino?

The Dick Smothers character, who is depicted as eagerly accepting comps and freebies from Ace Rothstein (Robert DeNiro) is apparently heavily based on Harry Reid. As you know, my wife’s from the West Coast, and she happened to work as a casino change girl a couple of summers while she was in college. When she told me that the Dick Smothers character was supposed to be Harry Reid, I didn’t believe her — but I looked it up and sure enough . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_(film)#Cast

I have no idea how *much* of the film’s portrayal is truthful with respect to Reid, but apparently, he’s got something of a rep for getting mixed up in ’stuff.’

• Link
• Report this comment

The production of cars in China is a sign of Chrysler’s growing strength in overseas markets. It would like to build Jeeps in China to sell in China. It is not outsourcing American auto jobs.

• Link
• Report this comment

Did she say “budget?”……

• Link
• Report this comment

“But, but, but …………. Jay ………. it wasn’t even a “terrorist” attack !”

Fail. Go back and read what Jay wrote.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep drinking the Kool Aide. Jeeps are headed to China. And fighter jets are headed to terrorists in Egypt.

• Link
• Report this comment

“With regard to him being corrupt, did you know that he’s portrayed in the movie Casino?”

I did not. Thanks for that tidbit.

• Link
• Report this comment

Who really cares about dead Americans anymore?

They certainly didn’t under Reagan. He had 92 people killed under his watch at embassies.

Bush killed a lot of Americans in Iraq chasing boogeymen.

Obama’s record is pretty good in comparison.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cheesy……Jeeps are going to be manufactured in China….http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/uk-fiat-marchionne-china-idUKBRE90G0O620130117

• Link
• Report this comment

““I don’t recall that Romney ever released 10 years of returns, so how do you know how “accurate” it is?”

Yes, unlike our glorious leader, people like Romney are to be presumed guilty until proven otherwise. As far as we can tell, Reid’s so-called “baseless” charge is perfectly true. And anyone who doubts it is a liar, nutjob or racist. Let’s get on to more important things, like proving GWB orchestrated 9/11.’

Wow, dude, you so crazyyyyyyyyyyyyy! It’s a reasonable question, giving no indication of anyone’s guilt or innocence.

Try some meditation…

• Link
• Report this comment

As far as we can tell, Reid’s so-called “baseless” charge is perfectly true

Let’s all shed a tear for conservatives, that are hurt by someone making unsubstantiated claims about their candidate…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Dixie Normous

January 23rd, 2013
2:43 pm

Keep drinking the Kool Aide. Jeeps are headed to China. And fighter jets are headed to terrorists in Egypt.
—————————————–
.
Truth and……………………lol.

• Link
• Report this comment

She is using this hearing to correct fox gop propaganda lies.

• Link
• Report this comment

S. Ray — “Are you sure he wasn’t also the basis of the Nevada senator in GodFather II?”

Don’t know. I’ll ask the wife and see if she knows.

The sum total of my experience with the state of Nevada consists of one day passing through it on the way back East after getting out of the Army. My first missus and I stopped to gorge ourselves on the buffet at a Vegas casino, dropped a couple hundred bucks apiece in the casino and then continued on.

• Link
• Report this comment

Okay, guys…I’m out for a while. Be good.

• Link
• Report this comment

Don’t tell people what to do crier.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Hell why not carrot top vs Hillary?”

Already occurred in 08 democratic primary

• Link
• Report this comment

I like Pauls dad. He is eccentric and has the courage to speak up on politically unpopular topics and his message never waned….Didn’t like all his positions but felt, unlike most, his first priority was not himself..

Ugh stop being so nice today!! I’m in a snarky mood, no fun being snarky with some one so nice!

Anywhooo regarding Rand — anyone who worships at the feet of AynRand is a sociopath in my book.

• Link
• Report this comment

Chrysler does plan to produce Jeeps in China but only for domestic (Chinese) market sales, the maker has said. Indeed, virtually every major automaker now operates production facilities in China – critical to avoid hefty import duties.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten:

I realize sometimes facts are pesky little things to libs but this is obvious. His ad said Chrysler will build Jeeps in China. Its true… Keep holding your ears and covering your eyes when facts come to light as if you don’t want to hear it…. Its what libs do….

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2106554012001/politifacts-lie-of-the-year-actually-true/

• Link
• Report this comment

The same cons swallowing every word spewed on gop propganda fox are staying the course and not working on fixing their failed party.

This is great for our country.

They will lose the house.

• Link
• Report this comment

tom,

paul retired.

He is history.

Move on con.

• Link
• Report this comment

Soon….you will see our jobs decrease as the jobs expand in China……our workers lose, taxpayers lose but, Jeep wins, China wins, Obama wins?

• Link
• Report this comment

Duck?

Dodge dive dip duck dodge

The Obama playbook

• Link
• Report this comment

Where be that Libyan yellowcake

• Link
• Report this comment

And, that makes it ok. Sad, sad, sad.

No it makes it a comparison on relevance. 3 people get killed on Obama’s watch, compared to 50+ on others, and yet not one damn word from the conned.

I find it incredible that people can be deliberately obtuse and reufse to see the truth no matter how much evidence, facts and proof they are given.

• Link
• Report this comment

Where be that Libyan yellowcake

With the weapons of mass destruction…………

• Link
• Report this comment

Joe

Marxism is the new retro, the new heritage

Obama will be introducing the horse an buggy carriage too in order to reduce carbon emissions

• Link
• Report this comment

Yellowcake?

Probably either in Iran, on the black market, or hopefully under US protection

• Link
• Report this comment

DebbieDoRight — Minister Of Propaganda

January 23rd, 2013
2:54 pm

I’m more often than not described as eccentric and offensively honest…I’m also in a business where I spend an inordinate about of time staring at my shoes.

Snarky? OK, if it weren’t for Blind Blue/Red sheep, who will follow the ass of its shepherd off a cliff as opposed to calling him out or even considering he may be politically disingenuous, this forum wouldn’t be much fun. This is GA, aren’t you nervous being a sheep?

• Link
• Report this comment

Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten:

Did you watch the ad? It says what it says. If you could produce something different I would watch it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cheese is bad for you

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout, still not going to tell me which denominations (plural!)–what was your phrase–something like “assist in the murder of the unborn”?

Come on, you’ve come this far. Cough it up.

Would it be… the Mennonites, who say this on the subject (emphasis mine)?

http://www.mcusa-archives.org/library/resolutions/statement_abortion.pdf

We stress the importance of respect for the life of the fetus. We condone abortion only under the most exceptional of circumstances. When abortion appears to be the least bad choice among several undesirable options, we stress the need for discernment in the faith community. Because of the diversity of moral conviction in our society, we realize that what the law permits is not necessarily moral behavior for the Christian. We believe, however, that the church should witness to society in favor of the “general presumption against any human decision to terminate
life.”

While many could support legislation which seeks to curtail some types of abortion, we recognize that legislation banning all abortions will not stop abortions from happening. Instead, it places sanctions on those women who choose abortion, without regard for the fathers involved or the fact that the women are already suffering the consequences of their choice. It also disproportionately affects the poor, as those with means will find ways to obtain safe abortions. Further, legislation is using the government to force others to comply with our Christian standards, something our
forebears clearly rejected. We believe that the demands of discipleship are to be accepted voluntarily, not imposed legally upon everyone regardless of conviction.

Well, Scout? is THAT denomination among the “baby killers?”

Because they quite sensibly recognize that criminalizing abortion would be immoral?

• Link
• Report this comment

Clinton keeps looking at Rohrabacher like she’s thinking “how did you ever get elected?!!?”

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course it was an attack……..video?

• Link
• Report this comment

One of only 4 times that I agree with Bookman, although I do not know that he will stand by his convictions while his Vice-god claims otherwise.
.
Facilitating the asassination of a head of State (via drone strike or otherwise) without a declaration of war is……………..terrorism.
And tacky.
Taking out a head of State in retaliation via street fighting in their own country is……….not.
.
Learn it..know it……….live it.

• Link
• Report this comment

joe

January 23rd, 2013
3:03 pm
“President Rand Paul would be a thousand times better that our current marxist-in-chief.”

What country you and Paul planning to move to, because he sure as heck will never be President of this one.

• Link
• Report this comment

…our current marxist-in-chief.

Joseph McCarthy lives!!!

Can you believe that sixty years on, these ignoramuses are STILL cowering before the RED SCARE!!

No wonder Georgia is in the bottom five in education rankings. Apparently they don’t cover American history!

• Link
• Report this comment

stands

It’d be good at this point to remember that Scout, does in fact, believe that abortion is preferable in some circumstances.

But… he also believes HE is the one to make the decision and he’d kill the baby and claim self defense for the mother.

Took me 3 or 4 pages to get that out of him one day.

• Link
• Report this comment

The gop are just playing politics on attacks.

The majority finds them unpatriotic and kooks.

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels

January 23rd, 2013
3:09 pm

If Scout et al don’t like abortion, they shouldn’t get one. The ongoing onslaught of christian’s obnoxiously pushing their contradictory dogma needs to be buried in the past.

Its the arrogance that is offensive. Live and let live…or as those evangelist would likely say…”live and live like me..”

• Link
• Report this comment

The dems on this committee should be ashamed of themselves. This hearing is to get to the bottom of the failure of this administration and how their failure led to the deaths of four Americans. The dems are praising clintoon as if she’s done a great job…… Unfortunately most folks really don’t care about this… Blaming the Republican Congress for this… ROFL….

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillary should have a headache after listening to the rants of both McCain and his underling, Rand. Both of whom are morons.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillary is doing her best Ray Lewis imitation. I didn’t see nothing!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout, I asked you and will continue to ask–which denominations?

There were many denominations that thought slavery was just fine

And any sane individual would *never* read what I linked and conclude that the Mennonites think voluntary abortion is “just fine.”

For you to understand any of this, would be for you to acknowledge that you’ve got it wrong. That criminalizing abortion is horrible public policy, and morally indefensible. Which is why you continue to flail and avoid the question.

Name the denominations, Scout.

• Link
• Report this comment

Such a serious laugh…..and occasion

• Link
• Report this comment

Since Christianity is not a religion, are Christian denominations a non- subset of that non-religion?

You gotta luv the corporal’s Republispeak!

• Link
• Report this comment

52 Americans died in 12 embassy attacks during Little Nero w/a
Cowboy Hat’s terms. Remember those hearings?
Me neither.

I dont remember them either.

Bunch of Hypocrites.

This is all politics and nothing else.

• Link
• Report this comment

JamVet you are so right about Herman Cain. He is a COWARD! Just ask his classmates at Morehouse.

• Link
• Report this comment

This is GA, aren’t you nervous being a sheep?

Ooooh good one! Never a sheep darling — as a matter of fact my horoscope sign is a shark.

Don’t go into the water……

• Link
• Report this comment

Redcoat

January 23rd, 2013
3:17 pm

Where and exactly how severe would this carnage be characterized?

How on earth can anyone judge on Secretary of State with another? One could argue that under Hillary, the Middle East has errupted in the worst chaos ever…fallacious argument of course but the idea of comparing or scoring secretaries of state is not really objectively possible.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul,
Did you ever see the movie “Will Penny”? If you did, you might remember the antagonist, if you didn’t, get it. You might recognize someone…

• Link
• Report this comment

What budget?

• Link
• Report this comment

Cool, so Panetta sez chicks can serve in combat. I find something sexy in a woman who could kick my ass in any number of ways and at any time.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul:

What’s the big deal?

You and Jay disagree with the President, Hillary, the FBI, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff !

Just stick to your guns in your liberal ignorance.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lib budget will raise taxes

Won’t cut spending

• Link
• Report this comment

DDR

Re my 3:19

Apologies. I was tapping into my inner lib logic.

• Link
• Report this comment

okayyyy, I like Stevie & Jm,

so I will now bow to the literary prowess of Ayn Rand.
and light a peace pipe, no extra charge.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Name the denominations, Scout.”

Guess what?

I don’t work for you ………….. “sport”.

• Link
• Report this comment

stands

Sometimes I feel and act the same way.

But I must say, I think we’ve both made our point.

But having said that, there’s something about engaging someone so sanctimonious that makes it challenging to break off –

Corbin

I do hope you’re not saying I need a bath more than once a year….

No one’s ever complained before -

• Link
• Report this comment

Stevie Ray…..my statement is what I believe jay and friends will be saying…..sorry I didn’t put sarcasm sign on.

• Link
• Report this comment

“President Rand Paul”

What a hoot!

• Link
• Report this comment

“President Barack Obama” circa 2006

Very funny as well

• Link
• Report this comment

Redcoat

January 23rd, 2013
3:31 pm

No my bad…I appear to be over-caffeinated at present since I catch those comments most often.

• Link
• Report this comment

Get

Government doesn’t work

Your pair of dimes are pennies

• Link
• Report this comment

Our government is so divided one attacks the other and no answers are to be had. Blame the other side, lie about the otherside. No nation can stand divided as we are. We are going down the road that Rome, English and all the great countries have traveled it ends in………

• Link
• Report this comment

“Clinton Erupts Over Libya: ‘What
Difference at This Point Does It Make?’ ”

It makes a difference to the families who want the truth !

• Link
• Report this comment

jm,

It does work when the adults are in charge.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul

January 23rd, 2013
3:33 pm

Seems to me when we start to delve too deep into definitions things get goofy. The question is whether it was a coordinated and intentional attack on a specific day or it was spontaneous reprisal from some obscure web video?

The fact is that BO blew it in terms of the changing portrayal…suspicions justifiably arise..election year…let’s get to the bottom of it, learn and move on.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rand Paul was absolutely right in his observation of the problem. That problem was the ineptness of another Clinton running things and lying to the American public.

Judging from the idiots posting in her defense also validates the problem with the present state of this country that votes for corruption.

Unbelievable close minded liberal thought that supports manslaughter and liars. You all are real pieces of work.

But then again…how do you talk to a liberal? You can’t!

• Link
• Report this comment

Active shooter down here on Moody AFB (Valdosta)

• Link
• Report this comment

PAUL,
No, I’m sure you must bathe at least once a month… No, I was talking about the leader of the family, Will Penny got in trouble with. He remind you of anyone?

• Link
• Report this comment

Out for the afternoon.

Everyone be nice !

• Link
• Report this comment

“Howard Roarke laughed…” the opening line to one of my top 3 books…The Fountainhead. Together, let’s observe the responses shall we?

If the GOP are dumb enough to attempt to reflect a geniusly imagined, completely fictional worldview that poorly reflects reality, they deserve what they get. Her books rock.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jm – ‘I can’t get my peyote permit…….’

dude, we don’t WANT a peyote permit, me or mrsstsimons
that will make you hold onto the bedpost and say ‘i wanna come down’
or so i heard….

• Link
• Report this comment

RANDPAULZI!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Corbin

I was trying to place the woman’s absent husband, then realized you mean the Donald Pleasance preacher-man character.

YIKES!!!!!

I’m gonna have to go back to sleeping with a nightlight….

• Link
• Report this comment

St Simons

You know more than I

On that subject

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier

I’d be interested to read what you wrote.

Do you have a link?

And why do you assume I wouldn’t agree with what you wrote, but that no matter your argument, I’d disagree?

• Link
• Report this comment

JM: Apologies. I was tapping into my inner lib logic.

You should try tapping into a history book sometimes. Just saying……

======
Do you want to go back and hold those responsible accountable? I’m with you. Let’s do it!
I find it incredible that not one damn word comes out of the libs mouths holding your own accountable.

Yeah I DO. Its never too late to start a tribunal on the War Crimes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. PS: I also find it ironic, (big word I know — you might need to look it up in the dicitonary), that YOU of all people are advocating “accountability”!! LMAO
========

JM: DDR is Susan Rice. How neat

Its better than being Jetrho Bodine…..
========

Rand Paul & Paul AynRyan are what stupid people think a smart person
sounds like

I’m TOTALLY stealing that one! Sorry.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay is obsessed with Rand Paul

Must be a bromance

I didn’t know Jay liked curly hair

• Link
• Report this comment

Hell I’d of fired her ass a long time before that – bite me Jaybook

• Link
• Report this comment

Jumped to a new post so quickly….thanks Jay! As I said on the last article, this is like “blogporn” for those on the right…Clinton AND Obama in the same article??? Sheesh! Crank up the crazy!!!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Stevie Ray

“What makes you think “cons” have a corner on any political market? ”

I said ‘cons HERE” have a history of making up definitions.

Premeditation was not the issue in that thread.

Frankly, I think the Obama administration adopted the definition they did because regardless of accuracy, our populace has been conditioned to think “any violent action by anyone we consider an a-rab terririst is a terririst attack!”

y’know, but the common thinking, when a drone strike goes awry and we take out a bunch of innocent civilians we can be said to have conducted a terrorist attack.

That’s why I’m big on clear definitions and standards.

I haven’t seen libs here do it to the same extent.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’d be interested to read what you wrote. Do you have a link?”

I don’t. Sorry. But it is in the comments made to said article by Jay. I really have to

“And why do you assume I wouldn’t agree with what you wrote, but that no matter your argument, I’d disagree?”

I guess because it seemed that you agreed with Jay’s dichotomy (since you quoted it at length, after such a period of time – a couple of months?), with which I disagreed. If I am wrong, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

• Link
• Report this comment

Irony

Banner ad at top: Starbucks Blonde Roast

Below: picture of Hillary

• Link
• Report this comment

stevie ray 3:50

Yup.

Gotta run to the store.

Back in a little while.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillary put on an absolute show. She laughed, she cried (literally). Kudos! Check out this article that describes why this was Hillary’s finest moment, and why you may have just seen the first female President of the United States in action…

http://snip.ps/HillaryClintonsFinestHourAndAHalf

• Link
• Report this comment

that’s PRESIDENT Hillary Clinton Ma’am, to you cons

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier — “What “subject” precisely? The meaning of the 2nd Amendment?”

As I’ve said many times, Intro to Constitutional Law.

“And what college course? I too have taught at the collegiate level, so be careful of the claims you make in this regard.”

If you haven’t taught *this* subject, then maybe *you* should take greater care in telling others to ’sit down and just be a cheerleader.’

“He just makes assertions.”

From where I’m sitting, so do you and many of the sources you cite.

“I am not at all convinced you have studied the 2nd Amendment issue more than I have.”

FWIW, I’m not convinced you’ve studied it *at all,* and I’m certain you haven’t taught it.

“Given the totality of historical evidence, their arguments are both strained and uncompelling, relying primarily upon the (now) ambiguous phrasing of the amendment itself and cherry-picked historical “evidence” to justify an ideological conclusion.”

In your journeyman opinion, perhaps. It seems that what you don’t understand is that your argument and your position are not strengthened simply by questioning the validity of your opponent’s position. Rather, it’s strengthened by presenting a coherent whole that is supported by the evidence at hand. Your accusation of “cherry-picking” is a clue right off the bat that you simply have no refutation for the evidence I’ve given you thus far.

“It absolutely was understood to be an individual right. You are just wrong on this point.”

It absolutely was not, and you are sadly mistaken. The right was *explicitly enumerated* by at least three states — PA, VA and VT, and was recognized in those states. Your argument — and the argument of individuals on your side — is apparently that *despite* the lack of enumeration in the Constitutions and Charters of other States (and at the Federal level), that the selfsame right is enshrined in all those other documents.

Sorry, Towncrier, but that’s a huge reach, regardless of one’s political views. And it would earn you a very poor grade. You can’t logically argue that both the presence and the *lack* of language enumeratiing a specific right are legal equivalents. It’s a specious position, regardless of how comfortable it might make you feel.

As I’ve told you several times now, you’d gain much more legal traction trying to argue for an individual right to bear arms as an *unenumerated* right (such as the right to privacy) or for States to put it into their Constitutions in the first place. Since the precedent is clearly established that a State could enumerate that right *despite* the fact that it’s not enumerated at the Federal level, there’s nothing stopping other States from doing just that. And in fact, that’s probably the simplest and most effective way for States to push back against the argument.

“I know of no historical evidence of any state legislation that sought to ban the right to possess arms outright.”

Nor I, as I didn’t *assert* that any such legislation existed.

“And there is no evidence that it was not an assumed, ununumerated right in any case.”

Which is one of the two positions I’ve recommended that you take several times now.

“I only know of legislation against concealed weapons in the early 19th century (which CLEARLY IMPLIES that a general right to bear arms was assumed – just not concealed arms).”

I don’t agree with your reading at all. In any event, a 19th Century *implication* does not constitute an 18th Century legal imperative.

“Additionally, the court rulings following immediately in the wake of this challenged legislation show that it was indeed thought to be an individual right.”

Immediately in the wake of *what* legislation? The Bill of Rights? Besides, the fact that one side in a legal dispute takes the position that they’ve got a right to do something doesn’t categorically confer that right. I think that you yourself would assert that *claiming* a right to an abortion wouldn’t create or confer such a right on anyone.

“Yawn.”

You know, given your frequent demands that your opinions and positions be accepted as truthful and factual, you certainly have a problem with extending that selfsame courtesy to others. From where I’m sitting, you’re certainly no more knowledgeable on the subject than Jay, but you seemed to have no problem telling him to sit down and shut up.

Perhaps you should reconsider how you address others, particularly given that you’ve confessed to misbehavior in that regard more than once, and have apologized for it.

“And let me know when you can bring unequivocally compelling historical evidence to the table to refute the position I have argued.”

I can’t help it if you’re ‘married’ to your ideological position. Students with such a strong ideological streak always had problems in my class, regardless of which direction that streak happened to point.

• Link
• Report this comment

The situation in Libya has been overly-politicized and the victims and there families being instrumented as a ruse to create doubt in Obama’s leadership and his cabinet. Public access to real facts is being whitewashed by this rhetoric while conservative hands paint the Blackface on our President. Watch them mix and apply the paints to his face in a portrait of Obama being Bamboozed by the Far Right at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/bamboozling-obama.html

• Link
• Report this comment

“As I’ve said many times, Intro to Constitutional Law. If you haven’t taught *this* subject, then maybe *you* should take greater care in telling others to ’sit down and just be a cheerleader.’”

Nice try, but teaching an introductory course on any broad subject is NOT evidence of having expert knowledge of any particular topic under that heading. We are talking specifically about the 2nd Amendment.

“From where I’m sitting, so do you and many of the sources you cite.”

Maybe you should find another chair. Some of the “sources” I’ve linked are from law journals and legal histories.

“FWIW, I’m not convinced you’ve studied it *at all,* and I’m certain you haven’t taught it.”

ROFL. You previously asserted that YOU had studied it more than me, and now you are asserting I haven’t studied it at all (you could have saved your breath and said the latter formerly). Come one, why be silly? FWIW, I kind of suspect you are making a mountain out of a molehill in stressing how your having taught a mere introductory course on a broad subject somehow makes you an authority on the 2nd Amendment. Sorry, I am not buying that.

“It absolutely was not, and you are sadly mistaken. The right was *explicitly enumerated* by at least three states —
PA, VA and VT, and was recognized in those states. Your argument — and the argument of individuals on your side — is apparently that *despite* the lack of enumeration in the Constitutions and Charters of other States (and at the Federal level), that the selfsame right is enshrined in all those other documents.”

It was “explicitly enumerated” by more than three states before 1789 (namely, Massachusetts and North Carolina) and by Tennessee shortly after (in 1796). It has since been enumerated by most of the states:

=http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

And it is explictly enumerated in the the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the document which the colonists lived by
prior to the Revolutionary War and relied heavily upon in forming their own Constitutions. YOUR argument is that the
absence of enumeration by 8 of the colonies in their State Constitutions means that they were discarding the right of
an individual to bear arms (except in the servive of a militia), despite 1) having enjoyed that right for almost a
century under British rule 2) there being no extant legislation banning individual ownership except when conscripted in a militia (which one could reasonably expect to find given such a change in previously existing rights) 3) the fact
that apparently many colonist possessed and carried arms apart from service in any militia and 4) the earliest
legislation seeking to control the carrying of arms was for CONCEALED weapons – a fact that (as I said earlier)
demonstrates that an individual right to carry arms was assumed – indeed, a given.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7yP1pwHAazEC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=kentucky+concealed+weapon+law+1813&source=bl&ots=n7BAF4j45r&sig=WzeXjHq8tQljjMD9lEUgo-u_qBA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BFMAUaHBCJK29gTY5ICACg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=kentucky%20concealed%20weapon%20law%201813&f=false (from Google search on kentucky+concealed+weapon+law+1813)

“I don’t agree with your reading at all. In any event, a 19th Century *implication* does not constitute an 18th Century
legal imperative.”

See above and it – not three decades removed from the passage of the Constitution – constitutes the common
understanding underlying the 2nd Amendment.

“Immediately in the wake of *what* legislation? The Bill of Rights? Besides, the fact that one side in a legal dispute
takes the position that they’ve got a right to do something doesn’t categorically confer that right. I think that you
yourself would assert that *claiming* a right to an abortion wouldn’t create or confer such a right on anyone.”

Huh? The Bill of Rights? Please re-read my earlier post. I said “challenged legislation” right after mentioning the
concealed weapons law passed in the early 19th century. Surely you know these laws were challenged in court on
Constitutional grounds (an individual’s right to bear arms) and it was decided that the 2nd Amendment meant an
individual has a protected right to bear arms.

“From where I’m sitting, you’re certainly no more knowledgeable on the subject than Jay, but you seemed to have no
problem telling him to sit down and shut up.”

I did not when he asserted an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment held with good reason by many is “mythological claptrap” and then goes on to support that with the argument it is out of date (as if that had any legal bearing) and likely to spawn any number of McVeighs (demonstrating the very fear mongering he seems to detest in conservative politicians). He set the fire. I was telling him not to get burned by it.

Again, you need to find another seat – perhaps one in the back of the classroom instead of at the front. You have yet
to demonstrate (beyond mere academic boasts) any compelling reason to accept your (deficient) “reading” of the 2nd Amendment – our exchange a few days ago included.

“Perhaps you should reconsider how you address others, particularly given that you’ve confessed to misbehavior in that regard more than once, and have apologized for it.”

I may have “misspoken”. I was trying to use one of the terms you commonly use to wave off a point. Maybe it was “shrug”. There was nothing mean spirited in my use of “yawn”. I am not bored by my conversations with you – if I were I wouldn’t engage you much at all.

“I can’t help it if you’re ‘married’ to your ideological position. Students with such a strong ideological streak always had problems in my class, regardless of which direction that streak happened to point.”

ROFL. Maybe YOU should take your own advice on how you address others. Hmmm? I am sure you see I turned the tables on you above – that was purposeful (or should I say “reflective”?).

• Link
• Report this comment

Give up Republicans.

Throw in the towel.

Say, “I give”.

Raise the “white flag”.

Stick a fork in you..”cause you are done”.

You are fighting a losing battle.

Nothing can save you CONS.

Its going to take decades for Cons to recover.

Uh Huh

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier — “Nice try, but teaching an introductory course on any broad subject is NOT evidence of having expert knowledge of any particular topic under that heading.”

It’s also not evidence of a lack of knowledge in the field, either. My father’s a professor of 45 years tenure at the university where he teaches, and *he* teaches one Intro section per year in his field; would you like to contact him so you can explain to him his lack of qualifications?. In any event, *your* lack of teaching credentials on *this* subject are noted.

“We are talking specifically about the 2nd Amendment.”

Yes, we are, and just to catch you up, that’s part of the Bill of Rights, which was a major part of the course I taught. Quite frankly, I think you need to walk away from this line of argument, given your apparent contentious need to play King of the Mountain with others. If your argument to Jay of ‘well, I’ve studied it and you haven’t’ is as dispositive as you seem to think, given your rude tone with him, then the argument of ‘well, I’ve *taught* it and you haven’t’ should be just as dispositive. Long story short, I’ve taught on this topic. You haven’t. Move on.

“Maybe you should find another chair. Some of the “sources” I’ve linked are from law journals and legal histories.”

Perhaps you should refrain from relying so heavily on the historical work of others and *actually do some historical research yourself,* as I have.

“FWIW, I kind of suspect you are making a mountain out of a molehill in stressing how your having taught a mere introductory course on a broad subject somehow makes you an authority on the 2nd Amendment. Sorry, I am not buying that.”

I’ve said no such thing. However, it makes me more of an authority than *you* and your ‘well, I’ve studied the topic’ gambit.

“It was “explicitly enumerated” by more than three states before 1789 (namely, Massachusetts and North Carolina) and by Tennessee shortly after (in 1796). It has since been enumerated by most of the states”

Stipulated.

“And it is explictly enumerated in the the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the document which the colonists lived by prior to the Revolutionary War and relied heavily upon in forming their own Constitutions.”

Stipulated, but not evidentiary.

“YOUR argument is that the absence of enumeration by 8 of the colonies in their State Constitutions means that they were discarding the right of an individual to bear arms”

FAIL.

That is NOT my argument.

You may now climb down off your high horse, calm the eff down and ASK me what my argument is so that I can repeat it for you once more.

“Huh? The Bill of Rights? Please re-read my earlier post. I said “challenged legislation” right after mentioning the concealed weapons law passed in the early 19th century.”

I did not make the connection. Thank you for elaborating on that. However, I’m compelled to point out that you’re relying on decisions *after* the fact to construct your Constitutional argument. One could make a *legal* argument on such a basis, but arguing the textual and contextual meaning of the Constitution is not something you’re going to accomplish by looking at court decisions that *followed* it.

“Surely you know these laws were challenged in court on Constitutional grounds (an individual’s right to bear arms) and it was decided that the 2nd Amendment meant an individual has a protected right to bear arms.”

I’m aware of that. But as I said, the existence of a legal dispute does not automatically mean that the plaintiff has a point.

“I did not when he asserted an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment held with good reason”

In your *opinion.* I don’t begrudge you your opinion, but I don’t find your opinion on this topic to be any more valuable than Jay’s.

“by many is “mythological claptrap” and then goes on to support that with the argument it is out of date (as if that had any legal bearing) and likely to spawn any number of McVeighs (demonstrating the very fear mongering he seems to detest in conservative politicians). He set the fire. I was telling him not to get burned by it.”

Then perhaps you should have *used* those words instead of the ’sit down and shut up’ construction you came up with. Had you done so, I might have actually argued on your side. There’s a significant difference between telling Jay he’s being a Richard and in becoming one yourself in so doing.

“Again, you need to find another seat – perhaps one in the back of the classroom instead of at the front. You have yet to demonstrate (beyond mere academic boasts) any compelling reason to accept your (deficient) “reading” of the 2nd Amendment – our exchange a few days ago included.”

The deficient reading is your own, as is your deficient understanding of my argument. And I’m not *obliged* to present you any compelling reasoning for reasons I’ve already articulated to you in the past.

“I may have “misspoken”. I was trying to use one of the terms you commonly use to wave off a point. Maybe it was “shrug”. There was nothing mean spirited in my use of “yawn”. I am not bored by my conversations with you – if I were I wouldn’t engage you much at all.”

“ROFL. Maybe YOU should take your own advice on how you address others. Hmmm?”

And here’s where you FAIL again, TC.

I taught that class nearly *20* years ago — back when I was fresh out of the Army and still firmly in the Republican camp. The point you’re missing here is that I arrived at my findings and my argument *despite* my personal beliefs and opinions at the time. The legal fact of the matter is that you can’t logically argue that the *absence* of language is textually, metaphysically or legally equivalent to the *inclusion* of that language, and despite Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller I and many other students of the law — on both ideological sides — still hold that.

Again, I don’t begrudge you your opinion on the topic, but your opinion’s *clearly* informed by your ideology and the sources you’ve cited are not persuasive — nor are they the sorts of sources I’d have expected from one of my students. Frankly, I suggest that you make a trip downtown to the GSU Law Library and start reading cases and Constitutions (not just the Federal one). Your failure to cite primary sources and your reliance on secondary and tertiary ones is troubling for someone who seems to sure of himself.

“I am sure you see I turned the tables on you above – that was purposeful (or should I say “reflective”?).”

I’m sure you didn’t, though I’m sure you *think* you did. Once again, I taught that course *long* before I ever even *thought* of voting for a Democrat.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Perhaps you should refrain from relying so heavily on the historical work of others and *actually do some historical research yourself,* as I have.”

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you claiming that you have examined the actual, primary historical documents themselves? Or are you assuming I have not looked at a number of republished (and sometimes online) versions of such documents? I have already pointed you to probably the best compilation of documentary evidence surrounding the ratification of the Constitution (the basis for much of Pauline Maier’s recent work, Ratification:

http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/RNCN.html

“I’ve said no such thing. However, it makes me more of an authority than *you* and your ‘well, I’ve studied the topic’ gambit.”

Not necessarily. Teaching a class introductory Constitutional Law class decades ago doesn’t prove that. Only having done more research would.

“Stipulated, but not evidentiary.”

In a strict legal sense perhaps, but you see that is part of the problem with your position. There can be no question but that SC justices have looked outside the text of the Constitution itself to arrive at opinions. And I think the reason is clear: in absence of absolute clarity, a judge (unless he wishes to declare a law effectively meaningless and decline to rule) must somehow resolve the ambiguity inherent in the text of the law or Constitution under consideration or review. It has been said more than once that the Constitution is no marvel of clarity.

“That is NOT my argument.”

It is essentially your argument. By claiming the 2nd Amendment does not, in its succinct language, guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms apart from a militia – that the prefatory clause modifies or limits the main clause to a single meaning, you are exactly saying that all of the ratifying states were in agreement that an individual’s right to bear arms – despite the precedent of the English Bill of Rights and the other historical evidence to the contrary – should be left OUT of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

“I did not make the connection. Thank you for elaborating on that. However, I’m compelled to point out that you’re relying on decisions *after* the fact to construct your Constitutional argument. One could make a *legal* argument on such a basis, but arguing the textual and contextual meaning of the Constitution is not something you’re going to accomplish by looking at court decisions that *followed* it.”

Look – if I am reading a 19th century novel and the author makes use of the word “gay” I will know (given the historical context of the time) that he was not referring to a homosexual. As I said, apart form any strict legal argument based on precedent, the decisions support my claim of what the common understanding of the right to bear arms was around the time the Constitution was ratified.

“I’m aware of that. But as I said, the existence of a legal dispute does not automatically mean that the plaintiff has a point.”

See above.

“In your *opinion.* I don’t begrudge you your opinion, but I don’t find your opinion on this topic to be any more valuable than Jay’s.”

I likewise don’t find your opinion to be any more valuable than Jay’s. What is your point?

“Then perhaps you should have *used* those words instead of the ’sit down and shut up’ construction you came up with. Had you done so, I might have actually argued on your side. There’s a significant difference between telling Jay he’s being a Richard and in becoming one yourself in so doing.”

Agreed. Maybe I shouldn’t have said (in so many words) ’sit down and shut up’ but the “mythological claptrap” line seemed almost childish. So mine was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. Mea culpa. But hopefully he won’t come out with statements like that again. Here’s to hoping, anyway.

“The deficient reading is your own, as is your deficient understanding of my argument.”

So say you.

“And I’m not *obliged* to present you any compelling reasoning for reasons I’ve already articulated to you in the past.”

If you wish to persuade me to your POV, you are. Otherwise, you are right.

“I taught that class nearly *20* years ago — back when I was fresh out of the Army and still firmly in the Republican camp. The point you’re missing here is that I arrived at my findings and my argument *despite* my personal beliefs and opinions at the time. The legal fact of the matter is that you can’t logically argue that the *absence* of language is textually, metaphysically or legally equivalent to the *inclusion* of that language, and despite Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller I and many other students of the law — on both ideological sides — still hold that.”

What amendment are you reading? The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It IS included in the text. You just happen to think that the prefatory clause restricts the meaning to service in a militia (and that such a militia is only answerable to the federal government). And I have shown you in this post and others reasons for concluding you (and others) are flat wrong. We cannot both be right here: one of us is wrong. I think Scalia is correct on this point: that the prefatory clause is perhaps the PRINCIPAL reason for the right of INDIVIDUALS to bear arms – namely in defense of a “free State” in a militia (the contemporary term for a group of armed men – I mean no one was supposing a state would defend itself by individuals acting arbitrarily on their own; people didn’t fight battles that way back then). I once again refer you to this important document (asking you to please pay close attention to the proposed amendments by NH, VA and NY, as well as Madison’s initial draft):

http://constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

“Again, I don’t begrudge you your opinion on the topic, but your opinion’s *clearly* informed by your ideology and the sources you’ve cited are not persuasive — nor are they the sorts of sources I’d have expected from one of my students. Frankly, I suggest that you make a trip downtown to the GSU Law Library and start reading cases and Constitutions (not just the Federal one). Your failure to cite primary sources and your reliance on secondary and tertiary ones is troubling for someone who seems to sure of himself.”

Why don’t you leave off with your silly allusion to “students”? You are not scoring any logical points with that approach. Case law is, as you said in regard to the early 19th century decisions I cited, is not strictly determinative of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It is useful in understanding interpretive arguments people have made, and the “evidence” underlying those arguments. But that is all. I have read a number of cases and analyses of the amendment. And I would say YOUR opinion is “*clearly* informed by your ideology”, your claims to having arrived at them 20 years ago when a Republican notwithstanding. That was then, this is now. You were wrong then (perhaps just out of faulty reasoning). And you are wrong now (for ideological reasons).

I await your ineluctable response.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] Discussion about Rand Paul’s questioning of Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi attacks. He was grandstanding when he said that he would have fired her: [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

And Condi did her job before 9-11? and how many died? Where was the GOP outcry then?

• Link
• Report this comment

And if I were I pirate, I would sail around in my pirate ship and stab you with my pirate sword!

• Link
• Report this comment

“That you’re not engaging in a ’strict textual interpretation.’ Moreover, you appear to be arguing in favor of something that smacks of ‘judicial activism’ rather than the strict textualism your ideological compatriots so often claim to favor.”

I see no need to apologize, JHM. Your assumption that my “temper” had “run away” with me in my last post shows that you are misreading it (and this is not the first time you’ve read anger into a statement behind which there was none). I had not the least bit of anger in me when I wrote it. And your imagining that I was somehow discrediting your claims of being a Republican and so forth 20 years ago are mere fantasies, based solely on my use of the word “claims” instead of something else like “assertions” or “statements”. And that was PRECISELY why I attributed your being wrong back then to “faulty reasoning” rather than ideology – I credited what you said as true! Further, your repeated expressions of condescension, while not really very upsetting to me (since I can be that way myself and find the assumptions underlying such expressions – particularly yours, like I have not done any historical research and don’t even understand it – are often ludicrous), are hypocritical and stand in ironic contrast to your claim of being offended. If that means you want to withdraw from further discussion, that is entirely your prerogative.

And I am not going to respond, point by point to you last post (for that is becoming more procedural than rational at this point and it seems obvious that much of it is not very germane to the topic but verbal jostling). But let’s see if we can’t take a different tact in this discussion. Let’s start with an analysis of the text itself and then work out to supporting evidence outside the text. Here is a sentence similarly phrased to the 2nd Amendment:

“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

How would you parse this? Would you say that it means that “schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged” only in relation to “religion, morality and knowledge” – that the latter are the sole purpose of the former?

Or, borrowing from the conservative textual analysis of the 2nd Amendment (by no less than a former Supreme Court clerk, Nelson Lund) to which I provided you a link last week, how would you parse this fabricated “right”?

“A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”

Would you say that it means that the the people have a right to keep and read books for the sole purpose of developing or maintaining “A well educated Electorate”? Or would you concede that it can quite plausibly be interpreted to mean that because “A well educated Electorate” is is necessary to “self-governance in a free State”, the enumerated right shall not be infringed?

I think your response (or lack thereof) will help determine the future course of this discussion. If you don’t respond, then I will assume you are unable to defend your position.

• Link
• Report this comment

At this juncture, I think it all boils down to two different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment:

1) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [while they are members of] a well regulated militia [that is] necessary to the security of a free state.

VS.

2) [Since] a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In the first reading, the right cannot be infringed so long as the people (or individuals) are members of a state militia. Otherwise, there is no right to “keep and bear arms”. Thus the enjoyment of the right is conditioned upon service in a state militia. No state militia, no right.

In the second reading, a state militia is provided as an obvious and clear reason for the right of the people to “keep and bear arms” and why this right should not be infringed. Being the grounds for a “free State” by means of a state militia, the right “keep and bear arms” of the people or individuals to “keep and bear arms” shall not be infringed. There is no necessary limitation on this right to service in a state militia. The right can therefore serve any number of purposes (such as for hunting, self defense and so on).

One key question is this: what reading best comports with the linguistic evidence from contemporaneous documents and references?

Another key question is this: which reading best comports with what we may best conclude was the Framers understanding and intent from all of the available historical evidence?

A third key question is this: which reading, all other things being equal and apart from other reasoning related to the first two questions, makes the most logical sense? This would include reasoning of the sort “if such and such was meant, then why…”?

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier — “Further, your repeated expressions of condescension . . . are hypocritical and stand in ironic contrast to your claim of being offended.”

As I have told you on several occasions in the past, I’m not aware of what *you* might find insulting or condescending any more than you’re aware of what *I* find insulting or condescending. Therefore, if you think I’ve been unkind, impolite or rude to you, I encourage you to tell me so. If you don’t, then I’ll have no idea that I’ve wronged you. Conversely, I’m obliged to tell *you* when I think you’ve been unkind, impolite or rude, for the same reason.

Therefore, if you want an apology from me for something I’ve said hitherto on this thread, you need to ask for it. And for my part, I’m still expecting one.

“I think your response (or lack thereof) will help determine the future course of this discussion. If you don’t respond, then I will assume you are unable to defend your position.”

Your announced assumption, in this case, would be wrong, but I shan’t pursue it absent an apology from you.

FWIW, you begin to approach and recognize my position in your last post, and that’s promising. What a shame that we won’t be able to discuss it further given your recalcitrance.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly return.

• Link
• Report this comment

“And as I said prior to your grandiose extension of permission, you may either apologize or consider the discussion over. Clearly, given your repeated attempts to continue it, you’re either slow to grasp that or you don’t think I was serious.”

No problem. I will consider it to be over. I will therefore plan not to respond to anything you say about the 2nd Amendment in the future, and I expect you will do the same regarding my posts on the subject (in accordance with your statement above).

• Link
• Report this comment