Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, September 24, 2016

WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association is facing attacks from Gun Owners of America for being too soft on gun control. This is like a double cheeseburger coming under severe criticism for lacking enough cholesterol.

Universal background checks are supported by 91 percent of Americans. Yet there is enormous resistance in Congress to passing a clean bill to keep arms out of the wrong hands. What does “rule of the people” mean if a 9-to-1 issue is having so much trouble gaining traction?

Or consider the Morning Joe/Marist poll last week showing 64 percent of Americans saying that job creation should be the top priority for elected officials. Only 33 percent said their focus should be on reducing the deficit. In light of Friday’s disappointing jobs report, the public’s instinct is sound. Yet politicians in our nation’s capital are so obsessed with the deficit you’d imagine they still haven’t heard how many Americans are unemployed or underemployed.

These three non-randomly selected facts illustrate a deep structural tilt in our politics to the right. This distortion explains why election outcomes and the public’s preferences have so little impact on what is happening in Washington. At the moment, our democracy is not very democratic.

Start with the weirdness within the gun lobby. Once upon a time, the NRA supported background checks for gun buyers, and why not? Polls show that the gun owners overwhelmingly support background checks, too.

But the political far right is, among other things, a big business. The NRA’s chief concern is not sane public policy. Its imperative is to maintain market share within a segment of our country that views the federal government as a conspiracy against its liberties and President Obama as an alien force imposed upon them by voters who aren’t part of “the real America.” Within this market niche, background checks are but a first step toward gun confiscation.

In a well-functioning democracy, the vast majority of politicians — conservative, moderate and liberal — would dismiss such views as just plain kooky. But here is the problem: A substantial portion of the Republican Party’s core electorate is now influenced by both Obama hatred and the views of the ultra-right. Strange conspiracy theories are admitted to the mainstream conversation through the GOP’s back door — and amplified by another fight for market share among talk radio hosts and Fox News commentators.

That’s because the Republican Party is no longer a broad and diverse alliance but a creature of the right. According to a March Washington Post/ABC News poll, 65 percent of Republicans called themselves conservative, just 27 percent were moderates and 7 percent were liberals. Democrats, by contrast, are far more middle-of the road: 43 percent called themselves liberal, 38 percent moderate and 16 percent conservative. Among independents, moderates predominated at 46 percent.

  • The political circus has no interest in reality, just what they wish were reality.

    They wish and wish and continue to ignore any inconvenient facts or issues, especially the *vox populi*

    ~~
    Just for the record, let’s get the story straight;
    Me and Uncle Tom were fishing, it was getting pretty late.
    Out on a cypress limb above the “Wishin’ Well.”
    Where they say it got no bottom, say it take you down to hell!
    ~~
    I wish I may–I wish I might–have this wish I wish tonight.
    I want that, star–I want it now–I want it all, and I don’t care how.
    Be careful what you wish; be careful what you say.
    Be careful what you wish, you may regret it.
    Be Careful What You Wish–You Might Just *Get It!!*

  • John Pigg

    The electoral process is deadlocked because of both parties, not just Republicans.

    Yes a great deal of Republicans are elected in safe districts that were gerrymandered. But had the Democrats not forced conservative Democrats to support the ACA those districts would likely be in Blue as opposed to Red hands.

    Its not enough to blame the GOP for all of our problems, Democrats need to take responsibility for not hearing moderate and conservative concerns about the ACA. Similarly the GOP needs to start hearing moderate and liberal voices of reason from those that swing Republican.

    • Can I ask you what the alternative should have been to the ACA? Because this person had the nerve to have a stroke with bad insurance, and my medical debt (after I paid off all my consumer debt) is six figures. My finances, not to mention my life here is shot, due to bad healthcare practices. What do you think the alternative should have been? Because personally I am waiting eagerly for the rest of the ACA to take affect, and I will gladly purchase health insurance if I don’t qualify for medicare by that time (I am disabled). Gladly.

      And this nonsense about being taxed for not purchasing insurance…please name one financial entity in this country that can collect money other than the IRS.

      All of the people against the ACA have never had a bill collector call them about a $16,000 hospital bill. I have.

      • There may be many things wrong with ACA but nothing that can’t be fixed! The GOP wants to trash it without even giving it a chance and working out the kinks! That is the kind of obstructionism that I can’t stand! Something needed to be done with our healthcare system! They also know this but my guess is because it was a key legislation of President Obama’s, they would rather trash it than admit even some of it might work!! What immaturity!

        • sigrid28

          In addition, the GOP serves at the pleasure of pharmaceutical interests, health care insurance companies, and privatized health programs, like the one Florida governor Rick Scott ran before he was elected, for which he faced allegations of Medicare fraud. Each of these thriving business interests also makes a lot of money by creaming off loopholes Republicans set up in the current Medicare and Medicaid systems and the programs that provide veterans’ medical care. The ACA was meant to intervene in this systematic highway robbery of the most vulnerable in our society, the sick and the disabled, so no wonder Republicans are screaming.

      • sigrid28

        Your situation is exactly why the ACA had to be enacted warts and all, with the agenda to fine tune the system. Under the old system, we’re all riding bicycles that need repairs, get us where we want to go slowly or not at all, but basically leave us with all the risk. The ACA lets us have access to the automobile and the licensing that allows us to drive with less risk to ourselves and others. Turn on the television for half an hour on a channel with commercials, and tell me how having a health care system like the ACA, with multiple options and studied limitations, isn’t better than riding your bike.

      • sigrid28

        In some states, there are rules about how long a debtor can try to collect on a debt. In Iowa, for example, a debt is still on your record after five years of absolutely no action on it on your part whatsoever, but it is considered no longer “collectible.” Each state has its own time period and exemptions, so the way to get some understanding of this is to call your state legal aide society or to contact a bankruptcy attorney who advertises that you may have a half hour consultation free. Your situation might be slightly better than you think. Believe me, you are not alone.

      • John Pigg

        My sympathies are with you. The health care system is severely flawed. I also have had a large amount of medical bills at some point in my life. But I think it would be a stretch to say that all of those against the bill have never had excessive medical bills. There are some who just don’t think its the right answer for addressing them.

        That being said good luck with all that I hope it works out.

    • The problem with the Affordable Care Act involves the failure of the administration to articulate its benefits to the general public in a way we can all understand it. There is so much misinformation and hyperbole that it is hard to differentiate myth from reality. In my case, the benefits of ACA became apparent when on of my grandsons became eligible for insurance coverage after years of being rejected because of his preexisting condition. He now has access to adequate preventive and corrective medical care without suffering the indignity of depending on charity to get the care he needs in the wealthiest country in the world.

      The “moderate voices” you mentioned should be best describes as uninformed voices reacting to a disinformation campaign sponsored by special interests affected by a desperately needed change that will provide access to medical care to ALL Americans, rather that a system designed to provide substandard care to those who could afford to pay the premiums and those who are considered low risk…until they have a major problem, at which time they are dumped for exceeding caps.

      • Allan Richardson

        Every time the administration TRIES to articulate the benefits, they are shouted down by right wing talk show hosts, and the GOP mouthpiece network Faux Newz. Besides, explaining something that takes more than ten seconds to say requires LISTENING to a train of logic for more than ten seconds. Since even the “liberal” media are afraid people will change the channel if they take the time to explain things, they chop arguments on both sides down to one-liner jokes. The only “liberal” media, which actually tries so hard to be unbiased that it gives the right too much credit, capable of following a story longer than a minute is public broadcasting. They actually spend five or ten minutes on ONE STORY! As long as we have voters with ADHD, or voters that the media BELIEVE to have ADHD, we will not have informed elections.

        • charleo1

          Good points. We know one person none of them are going to
          allow on their networks. You!

        • Sand_Cat

          There’s a “liberal media”?

      • BINGO

      • John Pigg

        I completely agree with you. It is extremely difficult to ascertain the benefits v cost of the ACA simply because it is so partisan. I am completely willing to acknowledge that there are many people benefiting from certain parts of the bill. But that is not what I am saying.

        My point or general theme, is that in the early years of Obama’s Presidency he spent his time ramming through an unpopular piece of legislation. You are one of the few being honest when you cite a failure of the administration to highlight the benefits of the ACA.

        But my point still remains Democrats bear some responsibility in the loss of the house. Whether it be for not explaining the benefits of the ACA, or by passing legislation that was undeniably partisan and controversial.

        Note: I am not discussing the merits of the ACA, simply the voters response to it.

    • charleo1

      If Conservative Democrats, and former insurance Co. CEOs, like Max Baucus
      hadn’t been put in charge of of the committee formulating ACA. Or, if all the Senators, that claimed to be Democrats, actually were Democrats, we might have a decent, affordable, single payer system, that most Americans wanted. Instead of the monstrosity of corporate crap, no one but the insurance cos. and big pharma, and the lying, phony, so called, “Democrats,” would allow. That’s why they got their butts handed to them in 2010. Not because they were too liberal. Because, Democrats all over the Country were sickened by their deceit. Americans are livid. They are livid over the outrageous extent to which the public has been shut out. To the extent, the Right has evidently decided, if they can’t run things, and they’ve already shown the Country, they have no interest in running it for the people. So, they’ll just obstruct, and deny, and harass. And pick off any of their own, they catch even thinking about working with the Democrats. But, Americans are far more livid, I think, at the Democrats, that seem way too, content to allow the current situation to continue. Because, we expect more from the people we elect, than to let Norquist, and, U.S.A. Corp, completely control their every vote, and every policy. That’s one reason Americans are not looking to the Republican Party for answers. They have their answers. To be Conservative nowadays, means, if it involves asking a special interest to do anything, or spend anything, or contribute anything, to the Country. There’s no use looking to Republicans. Because, if the Country was on fire, they would stand there, straight faced, and deny it. Rather than ask their owners for some water, and a hose to put it out. ACA is the perfect example of Conservatives
      having a chance to shape national policy. There were just as many Republicans on the committee that framed the bill, as Democrats. Many of their ideas are
      still contained in the legislation. Hell, the entire premise for the thing, came
      out of a Heritage Foundation think tank! But, they decided, just keeping with
      their, all opposition, all the time, would be best for the Party. So they spent the
      time talking about death panels, and deficits. And the loss of American’s freedom
      to be constantly shafted, and reamed, by the corporate healthcare cartels.

      • deb1ryan

        @charleo1 – They lost, because the districts were gerrymandered so the republicans won, plain and simple. You need to do a little more research!!!! The democrats came out in droves in the 2012 election, and voted for a democrat majority, but the republicans and teapublicans won again, because of gerrymandering, plain and simple. We just have to get more democrats registered and to the polls in the districts they gerrymandered, it’s that simple. Then we can change the districts back to what they should be, so they are representative of the majority not the minority!!!!!

        • Allan Richardson

          Maybe the super-PACS could set up a fund to help pay for liberal voters in the cities to move en masse to the suburbs.

          • sigrid28

            Life in the Red districts would be unbearable.

          • plc97477

            I hear it already is.

        • Much of what you are saying is absolutely correct.

        • charleo1

          Actually it was the 2010 I was commenting on. That’s the one
          where we really needed to be aware the districts were being
          redrawn after the census. And the Party in charge of the State
          Government, draws the lines. Democrats were clobbered in 2010,
          down the ticket, in races for State Congresses, and Gubernatorial
          races. We lost the House in Washington in 2010. But we failed to
          retake it in 2012, because of the gerrymandering made possible by
          the trouncing of 2010. And, they are not done, in giving Republicans
          the strong advantage in some key battleground States. Like Ohio,
          Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida. and N. Carolina. Where
          Republicans still enjoy unstoppable majorities to skew the process
          to their advantage. We now have one of our two major political
          parties in serious trouble with holding a plurality of votes in national
          elections. That means, they must legislate out the power of the
          popular vote to survive. And they are working by various means, at
          the State level, to do just that.

        • sigrid28

          I contend that even in gerrymandered districts there may be moderate Republicans, Republican women voters, and Independents who are finally fed up with the antics of Republicans in the House and Senate. I agree with you, to take back the House and win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Democrats in these districts will have to overcome their live-and-let-live tolerance and complacency, get off their butts, and vote.

      • First off, the Republicans have no answers other than voodoo economics. They run away from even calling it trickle down economics. And the dummies on the right, nod their heads because they are not smart enough to realize that they are being sold the same old snake oil. REagan and Bush both near brought this country to finanacial ruin with their implimentation of righwingnut economic policies.
        Baucus as far as I’m concerned is a Republican. All of those rightwingnuts disguised as Dems are in reality Republicans. Screw them and the horse they rode in on. The majority of Dems do not espouse far left policies. They are more middle of the road and I’m looking for a middle of the road REpublican, They are as endangered as the American Bald Eagle.

        • charleo1

          In fact, a perfect example of how far down the rat hole the entire
          stinking Right Wing has gone. You quoted George H.W. Bush’s
          description of Reagan’s economic wrecking ball, he inflected on
          the Country 33 years ago. And he was right. But Bush Jr.’ was a carbon copy of St. Reagan’s, without all those pesky banking regulations, that
          hampered Ronnie’s plan for impoverishing the masses. It’s really
          a shame, Ronnie couldn’t be around to see the fruits of his labor.
          And you’re right! Screw ’em. These Joe Liebermans, and Blanch
          Lincolns. And Mary Landrieu. Now, Susan Collins is one of those
          middle of the road Republicans. And what do you want to bet, they
          throw the kitchen sink at her, come election time? She may do like
          Charlie Crist, and become a Democrat.

        • plc97477

          More endangered. It is still possible to see bald eagles if you look.

      • John Pigg

        So in your opinion you feel the ACA was also inadequate because it did not do enough.

        And herein lies my point the administration spent a significant amount of political capital implementing an idea that was trying to appease everyone and in the end pleased none.
        ————–
        My point is that the Democrats should take responsibility, whether by saying their plan was to diverse, not explained well, or watered down by conservatives. Its not always the Republicans fault.
        ____________
        I appreciated your response. And even agree with your little snippet about it being a conservative idea from the get go.

        • charleo1

          Well, I think Republicans behavior, beginning in ’09 has been reprehensible, throughout. Given the tremendous challenges
          placed on the Country. A near economic collapse, fighting,
          and funding, two wars. Millions thrown out of work, with a
          mortgage twice what their home was worth. And all this
          upheaval, exacerbated a healthcare crisis, that had been
          looming, unaddressed for years. So, they made sure their
          constituencies at the banks, and Wall Street, and hedge fund
          operators were well shielded, from the losses on the bets they
          had made. Then, after years of unfunded, prolific spending on
          everything, from wars, to building an enormous Homeland
          security apparatus, to adding a billion dollar per year drug
          benefit to medicare. As soon as Obama arrived, suddenly
          the deficits were just out of control! No doubt about it, folks!
          If we don’t get our spending under control, and we mean right
          now! We’re going down just like Greece! Unemployment
          benefits extension? Kinda help out Mr. Average American?
          Hell NO! Not without an offset. Somebody needs to tell this
          big spender in the White House, we’re broke! Why he’s already
          spent, 20X the total amount of money the country has made
          since Washington was President! $500,000 dollars for every
          man, woman, and child yet to be born in the next 100 years!
          When all they had to do, was seriously try to help their Country.

          • John Pigg

            I’m not quite sure what your point is here. The Republicans left a mess? Okay, I agree with you.

            But how they can leave such a mess and come back and take power two years later?

            They did it because Democrats also made mistakes. Its far easier to blame Republicans for everything, but it isn’t very useful or constructive to improving the US.

          • plc97477

            They did it because dems rested on their laurels and didn’t get out and vote.

          • John Pigg

            Exactly, and that is a fault of the Democratic Party. So a serious examination of gerry mandered districts bears mentioning that fact, this article does not.

          • charleo1

            I guess John, my number one point is, I would rather a person,
            or Political Party, make mistakes, trying to address the problem.
            Than make no mistakes, because they aren’t doing anything.
            I don’t count criticizing, as doing anything. I’m biased as Hell.
            But, it was fairly obvious to me, the only thing in worse shape
            than the Country, in the fall of ’08, was the Republican Party.
            And, they really haven’t improved a whole lot, in my opinion.
            But, it was apparent, they could see the unholy mess.
            They had two choices. One was politically risky. We could
            jump in, and help clean up the mess. But, what if the economy
            just keeps sliding? The Mid-East blows up. Europe falls apart.
            If we help, we’ll have to share the blame. Better we just sit
            this one out. Claim Obama is over his head. Everything the
            Democrats do, swear they’re flushing the Country down the
            toilet. Keep reminding the public how bad things are. Oh,
            and don’t forget to go stark raving mad, about the deficits.
            They’re Obama’s now! How did the Republicans leave a mess
            in ’08, and win an astounding victory in ’10? They played
            perfect politics. For all the good it done the Country.

          • John Pigg

            Well that was more of my point. I had a problem with how the article put so much blame on Republicans but didn’t address how they Republicans used Democratic weakness to their advantage.

            Yes, I think the solidly gerrymandered House is unrepresentative of the electorate. But its worth two seconds to think about what allowed it to happen.

            I appreciate your response…

    • If you believe that, you are a fool. When is the last time Republicans compromised on any issue? Dems are always looking for agreement and compromise. BS, either your ideas are right or they are not. Dems need to grow some balls.

      • John Pigg

        Republicans can be made to question their idea’s and leaders if they are sold Democratic idea’s in a conservative format. Which is usually never done because the Democrats seem content to not address the concerns of these voters. There are serious economic rifts in Republican Ideology that can be exploited if Democrats would learn how to speak to average Republican voters.

        • dtgraham

          How should the Democrats frame their message if they’re trying to connect with Republican voters? What kind of language should they use and what would attract those voters to vote Democrat? How should they be approached and what would the Dem’s angle be? This is a serious question John. You’ve got me interested and I’m wondering if you might be on to something.

          • John Pigg

            For example the Keystone pipline was an ideal situation to hit Republican ideology hard. The residents of that state did not want the pipeline due to environmental concerns, these individuals were not hippies, but farmers and ranchers. Yet the GOP hit Obama on jobs, can you imagine how interesting the discussion would have become if Obama would have responded back with a states rights argument.

            The military can be cut citing conservative arguments like a small standing army, which is fundamentally historical.

            Additionally where the Republican Party is strongest is among low income white voters who have been told their job has been shipped oversea’s due to excessive regulation. Which is an outright lie, Democrats should embrace the old labor elements of the party instead of pushing free trade and start pushing for fair trade.

            If Democrats can learn how to talk to conservatives they stand to win on numerous key issues.

    • Here’s a clue. Until there is universal health care, this won’t work. This is a compromise solution that is not good. It doesn’t make anyone happy and is not going to lower anyones costs. Insurance is a monopoly. I don’t care how many different companies there are they are in collusion when it comes to pricing, what they pay for, etc. If you think this is wrong, you are probably interested in that bridge in Brookyln.

      • John Pigg

        So you admit the ACA was a broken compromise that will not work. And you seem surprised that your party was trounced at midterm elections.

        The ACA was weak for a variety of reasons as you yourself admit, and it was rammed through in spite of its unpopularity.

        This led to gerrymandered districts, which had the Dems maintained their position I am sure they would have done the same.

        My point is that it is politically irresponsible to always blame the Republicans for the current situation. And any conversation over gerrymandered districts should include a conversation about the ACA and how it was passed.

    • Sand_Cat

      Maybe they didn’t hear the “moderate” concerns because of all the shouting by the conservatives and the lunatics. Or maybe because there weren’t any to speak of.

  • An organization that refers to the NRA as being too soft on gun control is like Stalin calling Hitler a liberal. The reason effective gun control laws have not been put in place years ago, is because special interets whose profits depend on the sale of guns at home and abroad oppose anything that would affect their sales. Not surprisingly, even benign changes such as proposing more effective background checks are demonized and portrayed as evidence of an evil government trying to change the Constitution and taking away our rights and freedoms (read the right of A WELL REGULATED MILITIA to bear). In their efforts to maintain market share they go well beyond domestic policy and unashamedly distort the efforts being made by the UN to curb the sale of weapons in foreign countries to curb the level of violence being created by easy access to lethal weapons. Short of claiming that our Second Amendment has a global reach, it is hard to believe the rationale used by the arms industry and organizations such as the NRA and Gun Owners of American to oppose the sale of weapons to anyone with enough cash – and enough hatred or lack of common sense – to buy them, regardless of how unstable the buyers are or what their goals may be.

    • leadvillexp

      I am a Republican that voted for President Obama, (I believe in most of his policies) in the last two elections and am a Life Member of the NRA. Not all support is special interests as I help finance the NRA. Our government may not be evil now but our forefathers saw the possibility of that in the future. As for well regulated militia, militia is only one part. The Second Amendment established a persons right to be armed. A person need not be in a militia but only need to defend against civil strife, despotism and persecution. Just look to Great Britain during the riots when store owners had to stand by and watch their stores looted. That country has just about complete disarmament. As for background checks do it right. How about licensing all firearms owners and users? It could be put on the drivers license with a background check every five years. This would be done the same way Hazmat is done on CDLs today. It would not infringe on the Second Amendment as it would not be registration. The license could also be used when purchasing ammunition.

      • itsfun

        I agree with almost everything you say, except the background checks. Any administration that says it ok to have clones spy on and kill Americans can’t be trusted at all. I want the government out of my life, not invading it.

        • Oh please! Anyhow, what are you hiding!

        • Those americans that are planning to kill other Americans and who aren’t really Americans in the first place, you mean those Americans? Those Americans who owe their alligiance to a religion that advocates the killing of Americans? You mean those Americans?

          • Independent1

            That’s most likely what itsfun is referring too. What I often wonder is if many people (especially people like itsfun) stop to think about how many people may be dead today, which could be thousands, even many of them being Americans, had Obama not pursued using drones to searchout and kill more than 50 al Qaeda operatives. Al qaeda operatives who were often in the midst of planning imminent attacks on either people in countries we are trying to protect, or even on American consultates and embassies overseas and even in some cases planning attacks on America itself. Do any of these people that begrudge Obama using drones realize that by using drones to seek out what were one-time Americans (who in my mind totally relinguished their citzenship the moment they went outside the country for the sole purpose of attacking it), and killing them before they could follow through on their plans to kill more Americans?? Not only may have saved the lives of thousands of people could well have been killed by these terrorists over the past 3-4 years, but also may have saved the lives of Americas secret service people in that they didn’t have to risk their lives personally trying to capture these terrorists?
            Sometimes I don’t think people like itsfun are really use their heads.

          • leadvillexp

            We once called those kind of Americans traitors and hung them.

          • Independent1

            Absolutely! And that’s why it’s nonsensical for those who are pushing to stop our government from using drones, until such time as it can be proven that it is using the drone to kill someone that is not, in fact, doing nothing but trying to killl innocent Americans or people we’e wanting to protect. Don’t these fools realize that with the 24/7 coverage that is being given to anything Obama does today (especially by Faux News, Rush and other right-wing wackos), that as soon as a drone kills someone other than an innocent bystander that was not targetted; that the media will be blasting that action so the whole world knows it??? Stop trying to prevent Obama from doing everything he can to protect America and those we’re trying desperately to protect outside our country!!!!!

        • So you are a Dem, right? Repubs want to tell you how to run your life. What religion to believe in, what to do with your body, what kind of sex you can have, etc etc etc etc etc. Dems want to allow you to chose what you want to do with your life. Its pretty simple.

          • leadvillexp

            It is not true. I think you mix up Republicans like me with the Tea Party. I voted for President Obama in both elections and agree with most of his policies except gun control. I have also been called a RINO but perfer moderate Republican.

        • leadvillexp

          It would be nice if we could go back to small government but that is not going to happen. I suggested licensing firearms users and owners with five year background checks because it might help stop criminals and the mentally ill from purchasing firearms and ammo from most sources. It also would not infringe on the Second Amendment as it is not registration. The government would not know if you even owned a firearm. It would only know you have the clean record and had the right to purchase. Nothing is perfect.

          • Independent1

            I’m not sure what gun control you’re against, but you realize of course that what the Administration is proposing is completely constitutional. A SCOTUS decision of 2008 bascically says that although it agrees with the right of people to bear arms in a non militia situation for the purpose of self defense, it goes on to say: I quote: “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. The SCOTUS decision also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

            Now with respect to smaller government, just exactly where do you expect government to be cut?? Over 8 years, George Bush actually added 2,000,000 people to the size of governemnt, that includes adding tons of military related people. Over the past 4 years, Obama has actually cut more than 600,000 now from government, not only by reducing the size of the military, but by making a concerted effort to analyze the effectiveness of many government departments and the services they provide (whether they’re really providing a benefit or not) and where it’s been possible cutting people providing government services that really don’t provide a benefit commenserate with the costs.

            And do you realize, that when he first took office, that Obama began a war on fraud in the defense and healthcare sectors of our economy; and that over the past 4 years his administration has identified and brought to trial more people trying to defraud the government than the past 4 presidents combined, recovering billions in fraudulently charged monies. If you’d like to verify this, do a search on War on fraud in the defense industry and read a paper put on line by Pepperlaw LLC.

          • leadvillexp

            I am against banning. I am not against well thought out legislation. The legislation as proposed now is being done on emotions not logic. As I suggested previously licensing firearms owners and users would be a start.
            As for smaller government it would require less regulation and more responsibility of the citizens. Also getting rid of the dead wood. Both parties are responsible for the bloat.

          • Independent1

            I’m disappointed that you’re against banning certain types of guns and too large of ammo clips when doing so more than obviously makes sense and because I judged you as a rare right-leaning rational person. Thousands of mayors across the country were pushing to ban assault style weapons far before Sandy Hook (not via emotion) because those weapons in the hands of criminals puts the firepower of our law enforcement people at a disadvantage in a shootout which happens more often than many of us realize. From where I sit, you cannot come up with a justifiable argument for a sportsperson or home defender to need a gun that will shot more than 10 bullets and shoot them as fast or almost as fast as a machinegun: there is absolutely no justification for it. No one outside the military needs a machine designed for nothing but to kill people almost as fast as is humanly possible. Those thinking now about banning certain types of firearms are not doing it out of emotion, they’re doing it out of common sense and they’re doing it with full justification of the Supreme Court. And for you to suggest that it’s being done out of emotion is in my mind unconscionable.
            And I’d like to hear why you made the comment about putting the fact that people owned guns on their auto licenses would not be infringement of the constitution because it would not be registration. Just where did you ever get the notion that registration of guns would be an infringement of the Constitution?? Madison said nothing in the 2nd Amendment about what rights the governments should have for maintaining “a well regulated malitia” In fact, doesn’t the term “well regulated” imply that government should, in fact, REQUIRE that all guns be registered so the government can “well regulate it”? And even apply that to citizens that are not in the militia? So that should the need arise for the governments to defend themselves the government will know which citizens they can call upon to do just that – DEFEND THEMSELVES!! I’m getting reallly tired of all the paranoia going on in the minds of what I see are partially demented gun owners. People who are running around with guns that don’t have the common sense of a flea.
            Why do you suspect that governments require registration of automobiles (aside from being able to tax them). It was originally required because automobiles can cause property damage and kill people; so there needed to be a way for government to determine who was responsible for an accident or homicide. Well, are guns not exactly the same thing?? Do they not also have the capability to create property damage if someone uses one to shoot out windows, or blows holes in people’s walls, and do they not also kill people? So why then does it not make absolute sense for every gun in America to be registered, and in fact, for owners to not only register them, but also pay tax on the fact that they own one??? Taxing them would help pay for the cost of our law enforcement people to have defend themselves against some gun owners and to provide protection to those of us who don’t own them from those who do. And once again, this is clearly all within the Constitution as part of ensuring the country maintains “well regulated militias”!!!

          • Allan Richardson

            I remember an old joke about a hillbilly who had a leak in his roof and never patched it. His reasoning was, when it rains I can’t get up there and patch it, and when it doesn’t rain I don’t need to.

            The only time ANY regulations are proposed to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people is AFTER a massacre, assassination, or attempted assassination. And OF COURSE there is going to be some emotion aroused. But when the latest such shooting spree is forgotten, NO PROGRESS is made on “well thought out” legislation.

            Gun control is NOT expected to stop “all criminals” from getting guns. Laws against bank robbery do not stop all bank robbers. Gun control is intended to make it HARDER for criminals to get guns, and less tempting for people with anger control issues to settle those issues by shooting others. People who do not have a connection with black market gun sources will usually not evade a background check. But the only guns on the black market are the guns stolen from legal gun owners or bought from legal gun owners. The latter frequently involve the guns “passing through” the hands of a legal buyer who is recruited to buy the gun, at a substantial markup, for an illegal buyer. It’s easier money than selling blood to a blood bank, right? Personally I think the background check should include private sales, which would make that legal gun buyer a felon upon selling it to a criminal. And if the guns leave the country and go to a place where the ultimate owner is not allowed to have them, that country should be able to extradite the legal U.S. buyer for conspiracy and try them in their courts. We wouldn’t have so many straw buyers arming Mexican gangs, for example, if the straw buyers risked ending up in MEXICAN prisons.

            And I do believe it is possible to register legal guns in such a way that the database only allows specific queries, not “file dumps” that could be used for confiscation. The technology is available to do that, and computer experts hired by the NRA could even be on the development team. Would that relieve your anxiety?

          • leadvillexp

            What you said makes sense. I am not against sensible legislation but what is going on now is mostly done on emotions when people are not thinking straight. As you say the black market guns are mostly stolen or bought illeagly. This includes guns stolen from government arsenals not just private people. I am not against background checks, just banning. I believe you should be able to own any type of firearm as long as you do not break the law with it. Just for thought how about licensing all firearms owners and users. It could be done like Hazmat is on CDLs with a background check every 5 years. It could be put on drivers licenses and also used when buying ammunition. All done with a swipe of your license. This would not be against the Second Amendment as it would not be registration.

      • charleo1

        See? One of you has common sense, the other is afraid his govt. is
        invading his life. So, his answer is leave me alone. And, the nut alone
        too. So, his chemical imbalance can be visited on whoever is unfortunate
        enough to be in his line of fire. That’s freedom Baby! I happen to think
        corporations are evil, as they collectively control, or manipulate prices,
        wages, and politics, from your local zoning board, to how many Federal
        military contracts are signed this fiscal year. But, they’ll never come to
        my door. And society can’t buy enough guns to protect itself from the
        law. There will never be a house to house jack booted, middle of the
        night, drag you, and all the neighborhood off to a gulag. But, they will
        steal your future, and that of your kids, one paycheck at a time. And
        guns won’t stop that. People insisting on govt. that works in their behalf
        stops that. But, when 9 out 10 agree, there needs to be a background
        check on all gun sales. Not just gun dealers. If you’re a crook, where
        are you going to buy your guns? Craig’s list. Common sense. Looks
        like Congress is having such a hard time, parsing out the true will of
        the People here, doesn’t it? If they can’t tell a 90% mandate from an
        NRA election threat, we’ve got a problem.

      • Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

        Regardless of the ambiguity of the phrasing used in the Second Amendment, which mimcs the language used in the British Bill of Rights of 1689, was designed to prepare a nation to defend itself against foreign aggression. Unfortunately, that ambiguity and a heavy dose of fear, allowed a segment of our population to expand the right to bear arms to prepare for the probability of tyranny and oppression by our government, which considering our for of government means we are taking steps to defend ourselves against ourselves.
        Having spent a year in Great Britain, I will glady use that experience as a model to highlight the benefits of an unarmed populace. More often than not, an educated society, focused on civility and common sense policies and solutions, prevails over those that prefer to take matters into their own hands.

        • I have stated that part of the 2nd amendment MANY times and what does it get me? NOTHING but hate and derision! I fail to understand how some, otherwise, sane and common sense people lose all reasoning when it comes to this subject! I don’t want to live in fear of a stray bullet killing anyone in my family because someone got slighted in the super market or in a restaurant! This whole thing is INSANE!!

          • adriancrutch

            A funny thing happens to a person when they hold a loaded gun!

          • Independent1

            Yes! They get a sense of power that they would never have otherwise and often end up doing something with the gun that they also would never do otherwise – KILL SOMEONE!!. What proof is there of that fact? The fact that women and children are 50% more likely to be killed by a house member in homes that have guns. (The added risk to inhome residents of gun owners is born out by the young man who killed 26 and himself in Newtown, in that, he also killed his mother before leaving for Sandy Hook.)

          • plc97477

            What they lose their brains?

        • Just a thought, but did you ever see any arguments between the political parties in Great Britain?

          They know how to “Raise The Rankles” during a debate. There have been documented arguments
          that actually ended up in fist fights.

          Bring on the Popcorn. It looks like an argument is about to start!

          • dtgraham

            I watch the BBC sometimes. I Know what you mean. They had that situation in the Canadian Parliament last December. It’s almost identical to the British Parliament. The Opposition leader and Government House leader were yelling at each other nose to nose after they crossed the floor to meet. A bunch of MP’s jumped in to prevent a fist fight.

            I’d love to see that in Congress these days. Harry Reid was a boxer. Maybe he can start something in the Senate.

          • Reid Vs McConnell.

            Now there is a fight I would pay to watch! (And I am not a boxing fan.)

      • sigrid28

        Here’s where we can all agree with you: “As for background checks do it right.” I also think the method you suggest is doable: such a smart idea. As an NRA member, you need to let the association know what you think. I hope you have also been in touch with your senators and representative in the House. You’ve thought of a good method for saving lives and at the same time protecting liberties that we all hold dear.

        • leadvillexp

          I write two or three politicos every day. Take the idea and run with it. If enough do maybe they might start to think with logic and less emotion.

          • sigrid28

            Keep it up, because you have a great idea on how to carry out effective background checks.

      • plc97477

        Good luck trying to get that one past washington DC.

      • [email protected]

        leadvillexp, you must have lead piosoning because and cannot be a Repulican and vote for Obummer, your a Sheepell.

        • leadvillexp

          That’s just it. I am not a sheep. I vote across party lines for who I think is best at the time. I may not agree with everything a politician brings to the table but I try to pick the best.

    • lana ward

      I think Obama knows he can’t take our guns, at least not yet, that’s why his DHS is buying up all of the ammo. What good are guns without ammo

      • charleo1

        What good are guns without ammo? I can still crack people over the
        head, that give me any trouble about President Obama. It’s better than
        just throwing bullets at them, right?

        • lana ward

          You’re an uninformed idiot, jerk

          • And Lana, you provided so much useful information if your opinion is counted as information

          • metrognome3830

            Lana is loaded with information. None of it is true or even sane. Here she is known as Miss Information.

          • So I guess you are an informed one? Take your meds Lana.

          • Sand_Cat

            He/she probably can’t, being a resident of a locked ward strapped to the bed.

          • Independent1

            YOU!!! have the nerve to say someone is uninformed; the absolutely most uniformed poster on The National Memo!!! You have to be kidding Lana, you don’t even know which way is up!!!!

          • lana ward

            Pitiful! You people are sooo fooled

          • Sand_Cat

            Now you’ve gone and done it: you’re going to have to explain the meaning of “up,” to the accompaniment of frequent interjections by Lana about how if you listened to Fox you’d know what “up” really means.

        • lana ward

          The DHS has millions of bodybags and millions of plastic caskets too! What do you think those are for? Squirrels?

          • WhutHeSaid

            Ahem — Lana, don’t look now, but I think Obama is planning to scan your brain. It shouldn’t take long.

          • BDC_57

            Yeah not much there.

          • Independent1

            Lana has a brain??? I’m sorry, if Obama tried to scan Lana’s brain all he’d find is an empty space!!!

          • You and your kind???

          • No, for the wars that Republicans start and can’t finish.

          • sigrid28

            Maybe they just took advantage of a sale at Costco.

          • Independent1

            DHS has come out and said the large purchase is because they’re intentionally buying in bulk to take advantage of some cost savings; they’ve ordered enough ammo for over 100,000 law enforcement personnel across the country to satisfy their needs over the next 3-4 years. The Obama administration is actually trying to save taxpayer money doing what companies like WalMart do – buying in bulk.

          • metrognome3830

            Seeing as you are a squirrel, lana, perhaps there is one for you!

          • We can always hope!

          • Let’s just say that there are no bodybags and no plastic caskets. What are the squirrels going to do now? Lana, there is just one squirrel on this page and I just said her name.

          • lana ward

            I see why you wits at this site voted for Obama. You know nothing about him. ALL Obama voters are just like you. Know nothing wits

          • No, just the NUT CASES like you.

          • lana ward

            There are so many, who else?

      • NO ONE IS TAKING YOUR FREAKIN’ GUNS!!!

        • lana ward

          Why is Obamas DHS buying up all of the ammo?? Police don’t have enough. Border Patrol Agencies don’t have enough. The Military doesn’t have enough. Ammo shelves in stores are bare. WHY does DHS need all of this ammo????

          • adriancrutch

            Their COMING to take you AWAY! HAHA!

          • plc97477

            I just wish they would hurry. S/he is giving me a headache.

          • leadvillexp

            I think you forget we are fighting still in Afganistan. The military uses tons of ammo for practice and fighting. Also most gun owners have been buying as much as they can. We also give ammo to countries like Iraq, some of your tax dollars at work.

          • lana ward

            Nice try. The police and Military don’t have enough ammo. Why is Obamas’ DHS stockpiling all of this ammo??

          • leadvillexp

            So if the Police, Border Patrol and military don’t have enough where is DHS hiding it? Also these agencies are DHS. DHS is an amalgam of many government agencies.

          • Independent1

            You’re so right. But Lana is either too clueless to get that through his/her head, or it’s just his/her objective to be as disruptive to the comment threads on The National Memo as she/he can be.

          • What is your source for all this lying? Is this your right-wing entertainers or just a psychotic break with reality? Anyway, it is a shame Reagan closed all the Federal mental institutions. You would still have a home.

          • lana ward

            It’s your source lying to you. Probably the MSM

          • Independent1

            And now the listener and slave to America’s greatest set of liars and distortionists, Faux News, Rush Limbag, Glenn Beck and every other right-wing wacko on the airwaves is trying to tell sane people that it’s OUR SOURCE that is lying to us!! Well Lana, I don’t listen to one source, I get my news from REPUTABLE NEWS SOURCES; not lying douchebags like you apparently do. I do constant searches on the internet, including unbiased news sources in other countries to verify the facts, and in doing so it tells me what I just stated – Faux News, Rush Limbag and a multitude of others are broadcasting outright lies and distortions for no other reason than to set everything they possibly can up just to rob you me and every otherone outside the 1-2% of every dime we have via sucking our tax dollalrs like an enormous vacuum. They constantly try to start wars, cut budgets that punish the 98%, pass legislation that favors the rich and corporations, make up lies about how America is doing financially and virtually every other thing they can think of just to accomplish that objective – rob the 98% of as much as is possible.

          • lana ward

            My news sources tell the truth. it’s terrifying, that’s why dems refuse to believe!!

          • plc97477

            You wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in the ass.

          • lana ward

            The truth has bitten you on the ass plenty of times. Are you listening yet?

          • Independent1

            Lana, do you understand the principle of buying in bulk (which is what DHS said was the explanation)?? Wal-Mart knows all about that. Take the examples leadvillexp gave you and realize that there are over 100,000 law enforcement people in the country, all of whom do what leadvilleexp said: use tons of ammo every year in practice and qualifying to achieve their job objectives, etc. And multiply that by the fact DHS is trying to stockpile what they need to support those activities for 3-4 years in advance in order to get a real good price on ammo – why? TO SAVE TAXPAYERS LIKE YOU ME AND EVERYONE ELSE POSTING HER MONEY!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP DUMMY!!! OBAMA IS TRYING TO SAVE YOU MONEY!!!!! Why is it you’re getting paranoid about that????????????

          • lana ward

            Obamas’ Civilian National Security Force is going to use that ammo on us!! You need to wake up!!! The DHS has never bought this much ammo. They’re a bunch of liars too!!

          • Independent1

            You know what’s sad Lana, I’m starting to believe you and a number of other right-wing idiots really believe that. Well Lana, we don’t live in a dictatorship like George Bush thought he lived in, we live in a Republic, and recent surveys have shown that our military is politically skewed to being more Republican than Democrat, and it’s quite likely that a lot of our law enforcement peope are too; so just how would the Obama administration go about that??? Has your demented mind even given that some consideration?? I doubt it. What you need Lana is to have the tooth fairy bring you a new brain to replace the one you apparently lost some time ago.

        • BDC_57

          Please don’t answer Lana it does no good.

  • “Yet politicians in our nation’s capital are so obsessed with the deficit you’d imagine they still haven’t heard how many Americans are unemployed or underemployed.” Nor are they concerned that their legislative tactics are devastating the elderly and disabled with even more Social Security and Medicare meddling. If they have a self centered interest, they will take a stand.

    • Canistercook

      Perhaps they are more concerned than you are because they realize what the end result might be to all including those needing help if we continue to let our deficit grow at its current rate.

      • sigrid28

        Emphasis on the deficit and debt reduction is a trick on the low information majority of the Republican base and anyone else who believes it. So is the canard about the crisis of the rate of growth of the current debt. First of all, the debt is not increasing but decreasing. Second, the most robust way of curbing debt in the long run is to employ millions of Americans who are now out of work and not able to pay taxes. Passage of the American Jobs Act and more stimulus for education programs to train workers is the way to go. The GOP fights these measures because it does not want a black president to be the one to lift our nation out of an economic recession. The longer tax advantages for the wealthy prevail, the more the 2% of individuals, like Mitt Romney and the Koch brothers, and corporations that benefit can amass fortunes and stash them away in overseas bank accounts. Some of these stockpiles return to the U.S. to fund GOP candidates on elections, so this chicanery can keep a goin’.

        • Independent1

          You are so right, and what people like Canistercood fail to realize, is that not only has deficit spending gone down to 1/2 a trillion/year less this year than for Bush’s last budget, but so has America’s debt to GDP ratio. America still has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of virtually every industrialized nation on the planet. Because deficit spending declined by that 1/2 a trillion and our GDP has increased by over 1.4 trillion the past 4 years America’s debt to GDP ratio has declined to just under 70%; wheras most indurstialized nations run a debt to GDP ratio of over 80%, Canada’s is actually over 85% and Japan’s is close to 100%. So the notion that America is bankrupt or even remotely becomeing bankrupt is nothing but just one more GOP fairytale in it’s efforts to attack Social Security, Medicare and all other spending that would help revive the economy. They don’t want Americans to know that today’s spending outside the military spending is at the lowest levels in 60 years: as you pointed out sigrid, the only reason we’re still running deficits is because the GOP has done everything it can to block job growth the past 4 years, so instead of the unemployment rate being under 6% as it should be, it’s still over 7.5% and America is loosing over 1 trillion dollars/year in tax revenues because of the thousands of companies and millions of unemployeds that are still out there from the Great George Bush Recessional Disaster!!!

          • sigrid28

            Of course, I’m just citing (in a far less expert way than you do) the fine work of Princeton economist Paul Krugman, whose message keeps getting drowned out by Fox News types and even mainstream media who slavishly insist on reporting the GOP canard “in order to fairly cover the subject.” I thought it took E. J. Dionne rather longer than I thought it would to see the light.

            The progressive budget in the House seems to have been designed by representatives cognizant of the need for a robust jobs program and genuine stimulus, but the president’s own budget seems less focused on that idea, with the sop it offers the GOP on Social Security and Medicare. Maybe the goal of the administration is to make the GOPs obstructionist tactics evident even more obvious to the most information challenged voters, looking ahead to 2014. The Democratic cause in those elections is certainly helped by the misogynistic agenda playing out in Red States, where women of all political persuasions are no doubt getting very fed up. Republicans seem intent on trying the voters’ patience to the limit, while Democrats seem stuck on the “Please proceed” button.

          • plc97477

            The democrats are giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

          • BDC_57

            Canistercood is just repeating what the tea baggers were trying to sells us during election.

          • sigrid28

            Agreed. Our big job will be to marginalize this destructive faction by getting out the vote in the 2014 elections.

          • [email protected]

            Sickrid28, Intistupid 1, which flavor of Jim Jones Cool Aid are you sheeple drinking. You Idiot’s need to take your blinders off.

          • Independent1

            The truth hurts to people who love to live in denial. No organization knows how to wear blinders better than the GOP: they’re trying to return America to a time 80 years ago when Coolidge and Hoover collaborated to create the Big Depression. Fortunately this time, when Bush destroyed the economy like Coolidge did in the late 1920s, the American people were smart enough to not vote in another Republican; or you may just be standing in a breadline today. Be thankful you’re not: because the disaster Bush created made the down turn Coolidge created and Hoover turned into a depression, look like a walk in the park.

          • Canistercook

            Too bad that most who supported Romney are the most successful people in our society isn’t it! Our lack of productivity destroyed the economy and that will not be easy to fix unless we adopt programs similar to what the Germans and Singaporeans did – skilled hard work, low taxes and immigrant visas only to those who can bring us skills or capital. Unfortunately most Democrats do not support those programs!

          • Independent1

            Depends on your definition of ‘successful”. Sorry about I don’t consider people who make their lives work making millions of dollars by destroying the lives of others successful. In fact, my definition for people like Romney is DISASTER. Mitt Romney has ruined far more people’s lives, hundreds of thousands, than he’s ever helped. He is unquestionably one of the world’s most worthless human beings.

          • metrognome3830

            What the hell are you talking about? Do YOU even know? Lack of productivity? This country always has excelled in productivity. It does, however, become difficult to be productive when the jobs are being eliminated. You hold up Mitt Romney as “successful.” Monetarily only. As a human being, not at all. He is largely responsible for the lack of jobs. He was only successful in creating jobs in other countries.

          • Canistercook

            Guess that’s why so many companies like GM and Blair etc., moved their production abroad!

          • metrognome3830

            I knew it! You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Anyone who would believe that US Corporations moved offshore to get greater productivity would believe anything. Tell ya what, Canister, I know of some great waterfront property here in the desert you can buy.

          • Canistercook

            Do wonder where you get your figures and statistics?

          • Independent1

            By doing a lot of research. My comment on pushing America back 80 years comes from Romney pushing hard to destroy FEMA and return disaster recovery to the states. If you spent a little while researching disaster recovery, you’d learn that the states tried doing their own disaster recovery from the the time the Union was formed in the late 1770s until a Republican President actually (Hoover), signed into law the precusor of FEMA. Over a 150 year plus period the states had failed time and time again to do their own disaster recovery, constantly coming to the federal government for assistance and to be bailed out. Unfortunately, they didn’t always contact the same federal department, which is why Hoover signed a law that made one Federal Department responsible for helping the states with disaster recovery. Well that department (and to be honest at the moment I forget its title), handled disaster recovery until in the 1970’s it was decided to expand it’s authority and was morphed by President Carter into another department that eventually morphed into FEMA by Bush I believe. So by Romney trying to eliminate FEMA and give the states back the responsibility of handling disaster recovery, he was basically recomending creating a situation that had failed miserably for 150 years, setting America back around 80 years to before Hoover created the precursor to FEMA.

          • Canistercook

            fema is great for those that build their homes on the shore or on an earthquake fault I guess and buy no insurance!

          • Sand_Cat

            Just can’t resist claiming anyone who dares to question you is a deadbeat defending other deadbeats out of self-interest, can you? But I guess when every decision in your own life is driven by “what’s in it for me?” you have a natural tendency to assume your opposition is from people with the same motivation, but worse.

        • plc97477

          Well written. You nailed it.

          • sigrid28

            Now we have to get out the vote in 2014.

        • Canistercook

          Romney and Obama’s friends like Buffet avoid tax by buying tax free bonds. You can buy them too! Obama is not taxing them he is trying to tax those who work for their money. But who cares what color the Pres is, it’s his ability that counts and Obama does not have the experience and skills we need. But Obama does have his friends and supporters, government union workers, blacks,Hispanics etc. Wonder what they want him to do for them? .

          • sigrid28

            Let’s just take one example. As of this minute, I have not read the president’s budget proposal, but I think he may have addressed correcting a tax loophole that accounts for Buffet and his kind (I include Mitt Romney in this group) paying a lower tax rate on their investment income than you or I would pay on “earned” income, if we each earned a salary. That is because investment income is classified as “unearned”: the government currently sets a 14% tax rate on a rich man’s “unearned” income vs. about twice that or more as the tax rate on the salary of Mr. Buffet’s secretary. Of course, the Republican party stands against closing this loophole because it has become the party of the 2%, whereas the president and the Democratic party represent “makers” of all races and creeds, perhaps even you and I, who “earn” salaries. And yes, many of these voters DO belong to unions.

            On the topic of tax free bonds, I would note that if you or I were fortunate enough to have a pension or a 401k, we probably would own some through these financial instruments. Decent pension fund and 401k managers have probably diversified to higher yielding investments, however, since this president, who you claim “does not have the experience and skills we need,” has just presided over a dramatic upturn in the stock markets, more than replacing money lost during the economic instability brought about by the policies of Bush’s presidency and by policies the Republican party still stands for.

            Here’s the scorecard: Bush economy, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month; Obama economy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. Bush economy empties your 401k, Obama economy stuffs it. Bush economy balloons up the deficit; Obama economy decreases it. It seems to me that even Republicans bleating about the merits of austerity, like that plunging Europe into a recession as we speak, are crying with two loaves under their arms.

          • Independent1

            Nice try. Mitt Romney avoids paying taxes by an easier method – cheating. If you even remotely believe that the two tax returns he made public before the election are even close to what his tax returns show, you’re in fairy land. Mitt Romney shields millions of dollars of income in overseas accounts – surely you don’t think he goes to the trouble of moving money to the Cayman Islands just so he can include the money he makes there in his tax returns when those tax shelters don’t send 1099s to the IRS. Come on!! Stop kidding me – you know how thousands of millionaires make millions in income and pay ZERO in taxes!!! In fact, some of them make Billions and get a tax refund.
            By the way, with all your expertise in making money, explain to me how Romney ended up with a 401k that had over 100 million dollars in it that he’d only had for 15 years, and based on the restrictions for making deposits into a 401k, he could only deposit 30,000/yr – or over a 15 year period a max of 450,000. Tell me how he turned 450,000 in a 401k to over 100 million in 15 years without a gross amount of cheating!! Go ahead let’s hear it. You can’t explain it, because the only way it was possible was for him to do one heck of a lot of cheating. (Fudging numbers on the stock prices he was dumping into the 401k then having them magically explode by increasing exponetially in value.).

          • Sand_Cat

            What, now Romney gets lumped with Obama? A minute ago, he was one of the most successful people in our society! Yeah all those hedge fund managers and stock “analysts” and the other guys who make tons of money moving paper from one side of the desk to the other and ruining others’ lives in the process really “work for their money.” And once again, we see you projecting your own selfishness on the opposition: of course no one could possibly disagree with you because he/she thinks Democratic party policies – lame and pusillanimous as they have become over the years – are still better for the country than catering to your every whim! They must have some secret selfish motivation, they hope to gain something, just like you.

      • metrognome3830

        In the interest of being reasonable, Canistercook, can you explain how we will solve the economic problems by continuing to keep a large segment of the population unemployed and underemployed, thus paying no or considerably less in taxes and purchasing less in goods and services is going to improve our economy? I would be interested in hearing your answer.

        • Canistercook

          Cut the number of young people graduating from college with useless degrees and law degrees, encourage the youth that have trouble in schools to enter apprenticeship programs at 16 instead of getting college low interest loans to get a degree they cannot use. Fund the apprenticeship programs using the money now going to low interest and interest free college loans. Require a review of people on food stamps and SS disability bi-annually. Control medical costs. Lots we could do!
          When you make it easy to quit many do.

          • metrognome3830

            It is rapidly becoming impossible for young people to go to college much less acquire an advanced degree in law, so your plan to cut the numbers is working quite well. Encourage youth to enter apprenticeship programs at 16? Well, I would make that 18. But I will leave to you the job of finding those apprenticeship programs. They have almost completely, if not completely, disappeared. Your review of people on food stamps and SS disability could likely produce very disappointing results for you. I think you would find far fewer miscreants than you imagine there are. I’d be interested in hearing a few specific things you would do to control medical costs while avoiding limiting medical care and without stepping into that conservative mine field — The Free Market. I think you will find that wealthy conservatives don’t much care about medical costs. They can afford expensive insurance plans or self-insure. They are unconcerned about medical costs to the rest of us as long as they get all the medical care they want, when they want it.

          • Canistercook

            Where have you been hiding? You did not watch the thousands of college age kids parading around calling it the OWS group nor check out how many are getting ‘low cost college loans’ that will never be repaid anyway. A relatives recent trip to the emergency room for 4 hours was billed at $8000. Room & bed value $80. Doctor & Nursing $7920!
            Somethings wrong!

          • metrognome3830

            I’m not hiding. I’m right here. You refer to “low cost” college loans. But you don’t mention the astronomical cost of college tuition. If one leaves college with $50,000 or more in loans, the interest rate may be low but the “cost” is still high. And where have you been hiding if you don’t know that non-payment of college loans (far smaller than today’s) has been a problem for decades. Often times by very well-paid professionals who now whine and snivel about today’s college students wanting a “low cost” education. Your story of the $8,000 hospital ER bill of $8,000? A perfect example of what happens when you leave medical care to the free market. I hope your relative had insurance. If not, the bill will be even higher and in that case, those of us who have insurance will have our premiums raised. You’re absolutely right, something’s wrong

          • Canistercook

            I worked two jobs to get my kids through college – no loans. Obama care buys the existing medical market prices only the taxpayers are picking up the tab. Watch for the high cost of Obamacare!

          • I guess you missed when Medicare Part D went into effect under Bush and he negotiated with the big Pharms to pay non-negotiated rates for prescription drugs. My son’s one prescription was costing an extra $2400 a year ten years ago. I haven’t checked lately to compare the difference. You want to cut waste…start here. Hard telling how many billions extra we paid out because of this deal.

          • Canistercook

            I agree Bush’s drug program was nothing but a great gift to the big drug companies but Obamacare does not correct that problem.

          • metrognome3830

            You are to be congratulated for getting your kids through college. And fortunate that you could do it by working two jobs. Now what about the kids whose parents work two jobs just to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. Don’t always look only at your own situation and expect everyone else to be at the same economic level. You’re not the only guy who ever worked two jobs. I did it, my father did it (two full-time jobs, not a full-time and a part-time job). So you’re not special. You can watch for the high cost of Obamacare if you want to. I’m looking at the high cost of medical care before Obamacare and right now. The high cost has been here for years and shows no signs of easing up. Vote in the Republicans next time and then you keep right on watching for medical care and health insurance to go down. You may just want to start looking for that second job now, because the watered-down version of Obamacare pushed by the Republicans, isn’t going to do much for you.
            My original question to you was, how do you plan to cut jobs, cut wages, cut social programs and at the same time, cut taxes for the wealthy and improve the economy? So far, you haven’t answered that question to anyone’s satisfaction except maybe for a few diehard Tea Partiers.

          • Canistercook

            If you work two jobs and cannot feed your kids you either were a very poor student in school or you have too many kids you cannot support. I never suggested cutting jobs or cutting wages (except government union employees) or ‘cutting’ taxes (just not increasing them). I just suggested becoming more productive and being willing to work!

          • metrognome3830

            Look, Jackass, I didn’t say I couldn’t feed my kids. I said I worked two jobs and I supported my kids just fine. I didn’t work two jobs all my life and what I said to you that apparently doesn’t get through the fat between your ears, is “you’re not special!.” And you’re getting less “special” all the time. You don’t have to suggest cutting wages and jobs. It’s already done! You don’t have to suggest cutting taxes! It’s already been done. You sit at your computer, which I’m surprised you know how to use, and keep repeating the Tea Party litany “Be more productive and be willing to work.” The working people of this country have always been more productive and have always been willing to work! Sure, you can find people who don’t want to work, but not enough of them to bring the economy to a halt. You have the gall to question my intelligence? You can’t think of anything but Tea Party BS. And, you believe it. At this point I can see no reason to discuss anything further with you because you have nothing of any substance to say. You want to cut wages and curtail benefits for government union employees? Why? And don’t bother coming back with some BS anecdotal story about how you know a guy who knows a guy whose cousin’s sister’s husband has a job with the Parks Dept. in Left Overshoe, Kansas . . . and blah, blah, blah.

          • Allan Richardson

            If the productivity increases over the past 30 years had been reflected in wages, the minimum wage would be $22 per hour.

            Did you vote for cutting state government employment? Are you happy with the waiting time to renew your driver’s license? Well, that’s what you voted for!

          • angelsinca

            I believe wealthy liberals share the same issues as wealthy conservatives.

          • Allan Richardson

            Liberals care about everyone, which is why SOME wealthy people are liberals. Conservatives care only about themselves and their own families and personal friends.

          • angelsinca

            Liberals don’t care about conservatives. Theory fail.

          • My son is on SS disability and gets a yearly review and has to submit paperwork showing how all his money was spent. All his receipts have to be kept and available for review. For the little bit that he receives I worry about how he will survive when I’m gone especially if chained CPI is instituted.

          • The reason the coprorate entities are being allowed to hire so many H1-B forgiegn devils is, as they say, Americans aren’t trained or skilled enough & don’t have the advanced degrees to do the work.
            Which is total BS.
            Americans need to educate their children so they can get into government & get rid of politians, we need statesmen (and wi’men) not more life time political animals.
            Maybe it’s time for our gov’t system to be completely overhauled starting with the lobbyists, who are bribing our elected officals.
            Term limits & no benefits after serving will shake out the a-sholes very quickly.
            You elect lawyers to make laws & they make laws that benefit them at your expense, how dumb. It’s the same thing you did when you elected an oil baron to the white house & then asked WHY oil prices went up.
            Duhhh…

        • Canistercook

          We won’t solve our problems, we will just create more with production of solar panels we can’t sell, electric cars we can’t afford and an over expensive medical system that is sapping our investment money away.. It’s not Romney’s nor Obama’s tax returns we should be looking at, its Clinton’s, Bush’s and Barney Franks and a lot of these politicians after they leave office. They become highly paid lobbyists. Obama is promising more low cost college loans and we have a hoard of unemployed college graduates. We need workers not more lawyers and financial advisers!

  • ram1020

    Making laws based on public opinion is dangerous. If that were the fundamental principle we were following, how could proposition elections be challenged? How would minority rights be protected? There were times in the past, and will be in the future that the right thing is not consistent with public opinion.
    In theory, we elect our law makers because the electorate trusts their judgment. They are supposed to determine what is in the best interest of the constituents that elected them, and make laws accordingly. It is their responsibility to explain their actions to the electorate.

    • Well judging from numerous remarks by many politicians, I don’t trust their judgement any more!!

      • ram1020

        This is why we should take elections seriously. If the voters just vote for who they are “supposed” to vote for, then they are only held accountable by the people who tell you how to vote. Neither party is correct 100% of the time, yet we tend to vote for a party, not a person. The only way we break this partisan gridlock is to elect people who we trust with our welfare, regardless of party, and then hold them accountable.

        • Sand_Cat

          The problem is, if you don’t like your Dem rep, who are you going to vote for? The right-wing lunatic running against him? And no doubt the tea partiers feel the same way.

      • ram1020

        Then we need to vote for the person, not the brand name. It starts at the local level.

    • So, how does gerrymandering enter into the equation?

      • ram1020

        Use a computer program to determine district boundaries so that they are close to equal in population with minimal distances between the center and the boundaries. Even though this might eliminate some “safe” districts as well as some districts reserved for minorities, it would cause us to face up to issues during an election, rather than sending so many ideologues to Congress.

  • itsfun

    Majority rule ended a long time ago. Between lobbyist and special interest groups, the average citizens has almost no say on what laws are made and what laws are enforced.

    • Look at your states laws! What has been happening in some of the states is asinine! Were these issues put up for public vote? NO! How can they do this?

      • adriancrutch

        ALEC writes your laws….and Alec prevails. For what do sheep know?

      • Canistercook

        Does it make a difference if they are put up for a vote. Just a waste of money. If the politicians like the vote they keep it, if they don’t like the vote they change it. Great Democracy! Seems prop 8 in California the public vote does not mean a thing.

  • docb

    The roberts activist court put the nail in the coffin of Majority rule with citizens united! Then the crazies elected whacko clowns in 2010..with gerrymandered districts and dirty politics of lies! The nra arms dealers lobbyisits put $$$ into 16 Senate races and won ONLY 3! It is a paper tiger that has chosen arms dealers PROFITS over American LIVES!

    Look to the number of filibusters and games that the repubs in the House have been playing with lives…Disgusting trash!

    • I think your first line is the most profound statement on this entire thread. Your next line is a close second. The Teabuggers aren’t getting much for their money. The problem is with all the lies and criminal activity, driven by all that money, they will always be a threat. For good to thrive it has to be constant and vigilant, but all these clowns have to do to wreck our country is get lucky once.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    The extremists just have big mouths. Nothing more. They make a whole lot of noise. But the silent “majority” still has the final say. Americans, in their own inimitable way, always err on the side of common sense when it comes to our government. What we are seeing today is a slow death to corruption that we know now as “crony capitalism.” A government so deeply in bed with Big Business always causes a revolt. You can’t take hard earned income, allow politicians to hand it to Big Businesses year after year with ZERO ROI. Wall Street demands ROI for the investment dollars they gamble with. Why on earth would Americans ignore what’s happening to their tax dollars in DC? K-Street wants us to believe it is Soooooooo powerful, that there are no options. You ever see any human being with their backs to the wall who don’t think about options to survive? That’s how utterly stupid the GOP Norquistian Empire has become. They’ll get the blowback they provoked.

    • angelsinca

      Eleanore-you describe the political climate of 8 years ago very well. if I take your statement and replace GOP with Democrats and business with labor, we have a more accurate picture of today’s version of political corruption.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    Look…in many states, the cost for a license to sell liquor is prohibitive enough to reduce the number of licenses. This can also be done to gun sellers, dealers and manufacturers. They should not have free rein to sell millions of guns every year. It simply is not necessary nor is it remotely sane. Slap a higher fine, jail time for illegal gun traffickers and then jack the cost of the licenses that allow gun dealers to sell those guns in the millions every year. The government could use that additional revenue from the higher cost of gun seller licenses and the GOP will stop their carping about the deficit. Let’s see if they’ll put their money where their big mouths are.

    • angelsinca

      How will this prevent bad guys from getting guns and shooting people? And how is it fair to impose additional expense on gun buyers Maybe you should be taxed more for the things you support? I know people whose ONLY means of protection on the mean streets of Oakland, CA are with guns bought illegally. Before casting judgement from an ivory tower, they aren’t the bad guys.

  • We need guns to minimize gerrymandering and maximize the election opportunities for ALL.

  • midway54

    Rule by We the People has been gone for some time. We are in a strong rightwing Plutocracy that will only become stronger as the Congress maintains its dysfunction and the media continue to be populated not by genuine journalists but by high paid stenographers.and shameless propagandist supporters of the system.

  • Lovefacts

    Battling extremism starts in our local and state elections. It’s from these arenas that we get our national politicans. Therefore, the easiest way to defeat extremism is to vote it out of office. As for those in ofice, it’s still one person one vote.
    So, Progressives, instead of bemoaning the state of things, VOTE in all elections–not just the national ones. Also, write your Senator and Congressman and let them know, that we can be like the T-party and that they too can find themselves primaried.

  • Steve Noetzel

    Among the lot of you…maybe, just maybe…there are a combined total of perhaps 12 years of public school education. Is there no shame? Ask your kids to tell you about this newfangled thing called Spellcheck.

    • metrognome3830

      Sorry to inform you Steve, but Spellcheck is not infallible either. In fact, we may find that Spellcheck is one of the reasons our kids need Spellcheck. If one doesn’t know the proper usage of the words “to” and “too,” for example, Spellcheck is not going to do one any good.

  • montanabill

    Let’s see…a majority (but not a bipartisan majority) got their way on Obamacare, the absolute worst piece of legislation ever passed into law. Sometimes, a majority is simply a mob.

    • Sometimes, the minority is simply a group of vicious, mean-spirited, selfish losers bent on doing evil to others. AND then they are “suprised” when the “majority” dumps them in the dirt. You do have one point. Obamacare is not as good as it should be. (FUT it is a start.) We need to dump the insurance companies, those corporations that you model your ethic on (or lack thereof), in the dirt with the rest of your kind, AND go to single payer.

      • montanabill

        Do some serious research on single payer.

        • Sand_Cat

          Do some serious research on your friends’ efforts to prevent Democratic supporters from voting. And on other bad legislation. And on distinguishing facts from self-delusion.

          • montanabill

            Being a Democratic supporter does not make you a citizen nor does it allow you to vote multiple times, which is exactly what occurred.

          • Sand_Cat

            Sure.

            I guess Obama actually lost by 1,000,000 (or maybe 10,000,000, or even more; what’s the difference when we’re in Fantasyland?) after ACORN and the UN registered all those aliens (take your pick: from Mars? Venus? Mexico?) and “stole” the election.

            I often disagree with you, but I always thought you were too smart for this kind of thing, but I guess desperation does strange things to people. I guess after 2000, you guys just had to expand your projection of all your faults (and frauds) on the opposition. Sure beats having to admit that you are the ones that hate America and all that democratic republic stuff that means you have to occasionally put up with someone elected by all those inferior people who aren’t deserving of any say in how you run “your” country.

            Why don’t you and Lana Ward and Obozo get together and prove to each other that Obama is actually a Socialist-Communist-Nazi-Muslim-Kenyan (did I leave anything out?).

          • montanabill

            www dot truethevote dot org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures

          • Sand_Cat

            Awhile back, you suggested I try some “non-partisan” websites. Back at ya’ Bill. You want me to take as “fact” crap on a website for an organization dedicated to intimidating minority and other voters to swing elections their way? Sorry.

            Get out your aluminum foil hat and your guns: the UN and them aliens are a’ comin’ for ye ridin’ the Loch Ness monster and bringing weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.

          • montanabill

            If the best you have got is a 5 year old’s attempt at being insulting, I would then have to suspect the rest of your intellect is not much higher.

          • angelsinca

            They will never be able to demonstrate how republicans are preventing democrats from voting because it’s not happening. They are corrupt to the core and simply won’t trust anyone not as corrupt as they are.

          • Sand_Cat

            Another proclamation from on high! Did the big guy upstairs give this one to you personally, or are you just acting on your own?

          • angelsinca

            G’morning kitty_litter. Can you provide proof of vote prevention by the GOP or are you just here to intimidate? Please read the TOS.

    • Sand_Cat

      Sorry, but there a LOT of better candidates for the worst piece of legislation, with the USA Patriot act near the front rank, but probably exceeded by all the efforts in Republican controlled legislatures to prevent people from voting. And the Bush tax cuts. And a long string of other “conservative” “accomplishments.”

      • montanabill

        Obama renewed the Patriot Act. The Bush tax cuts resulted in the largest increase in revenues to the government and I see nothing wrong with any attempt to prevent dead people from voting, illegal immigrants from voting and for efforts to keep people from voting more than once. If you think Republicans were doing any more than that, you are simply in denial.

        • Sand_Cat

          So Obama signed the renewed Patriot Act passed by Republican lunatics and spineless Democrats. Does make it great?

          Sure the tax cuts resulted in great revenue; that’s why our debt is now trillions.
          You are the one in denial: the evidence is the opposite of what you claim on the voting front, but then, who needs evidence, right? Just another failing of the reality-based community.

      • plc97477

        Add the postal service needing to pre-fund their retirement for 75 years.

  • middleclasstaxpayer

    If “majority ruled” obamacare would NEVER have been instituted. Obama & Pelosi rammed this unread & little-understood bill thru congress without ANYONE knowing what was in it. Now, employers are putting many on part-time status, eliminating company paid medical, and, to add insult to injury, current medical policies have risen by 30% already just in 2013. If “majority ruled” obama would be out of the WH with his wasteful “stimulus” packages and stupid investments failing one after the other….$200 Million just lost on collapse & bankruptcy of Fisker Auto last week. 123 Battery out of business along with Solyndra for another $700 Million loss. All these “investments” of taxpayer funds went to big supporters of obama campaign without ant responsibility to repay or make good. The “Amateur” has screwed us again. Not only will the US lose its credit rating w/ Obama, we will lose our National identity and sink to near third world status. Great job by a pseudo president! A sheep in wolf’s clothing.

    • Wrong . . .

      • middleclasstaxpayer

        Exactly what is wrong with these comments?????

    • Even if the blather you have written were true, which it is not, the screwing we are getting from the Obama Administration is still far less than what we were getting during the Bush/Cheney fiasco.

      And, the screwing we would have gotten from the Romney/Ryan crowd would have far exceeded what Bush/Cheney did to us.

      • Sand_Cat

        Well, I’m no fan of Romney or Ryan, but it’s still hard to credit your last sentence!

  • ObozoMustGo

    EJ Dionne, useful idiot du jour, once again inserts foot into mouth. Hey EJ…. we don’t live in a majority rule democracy!!!! We live in a representative republic that protects the rights of the minority by giving them a voice and a means to stop majority rule, both in the manner in which our government is supposed to have checks and balances through 3 equal branches, one being a bicameral legistlature, and through a Bill of Rights that defines what government CANT do to us, not what it is allowed to do. The 2nd Amendment is absolutely clear: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Background checks lead to registration and registration to confiscation. It has happened exactly that way over and over throughout history, and in every single case the people have been disarmed. And not a single law they can pass would have stopped the CO or CT shooters. Not one!!!

    Have a nice day!

    As Founding Father Tench Coxe said, while attempting to allay the fears of critics of the proposed Constitution: “The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    • dtgraham

      “In every single case the people have been disarmed.” “Throughout history.” Maybe not every single case Obozo. Gun registries and background checks didn’t disarm the populace in your neighbour to the north. Certain types of weapons and clips maybe, but you can still buy a gun. Can’t speak for anywhere else though.

      • ObozoMustGo

        Hello DT! How’s my Canadian socialist buddy doing? I hope well. To respond to you, Canadians are in the middle of being disarmed, and you just don’t recognize it. Britain disarmed their people over multiple decades. Further, I don’t think the Canadian Constitution recognizes a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms that shall NOT be infringed. Ours does. It’s the tyrants biggest obstacle… an armed populace combined with military oaths that swear allegiance to uphold and defend the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, and not some political liar and hack like Obozo. or some other scumbag that will come along in the future.

        On a more sad note, looks like my Flyers are in the toilet this year. Oh well, I hope they stop winning so they climb up in the draft higher.

        Have a nice day, DT!

        “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson

        “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.” – George Washington

        • dtgraham

          Sucks to be in the Atlantic Division. In the Southeast the Flyers would be fighting the Caps for first like Winnipeg with practically the same record.

    • Sand_Cat

      A useful idiot is still better than a useless moron, obozo. And why don’t you “go”?

      • BDC_57

        Well said he is worthless.

  • option31

    Hmm so if the majority of one race or class of citizen decides the other must go it is okay to exterminate them – that is what E.J. wants? That democracy / majority rule. I think Nazi Germany tried that… Where do these people get their journalism degrees? E.J apparently would not even pass the Cracker jacks prize curriculum. I used to somewhat respect his opinions but since he started with National Memo apparently he has lost his ability to critically think and can now only spout or shill nonsense. Too bad he was a smart man at one time, guess he sold his soul.

    • Option 00, that is just about the purest hypocrisy posted on this thread. That and a snide attempt at insult results in complete drivel. . .

      • option31

        How is it hypocrisy? I’m just taking another subject matter and applying E.J.s same thoughts straight across with no twisting. Snide – well maybe but when you call for majority rule snide is the least you deserve.EJ is insulting people intelligence by saying we have a democracy, we do not we have a republican form of government in which the MINORITY rights are protected form the majorities desires and whims. The “majority” in the early part of this countries history believed in slavery and killing of the Indians to take their land so that’s was right? The majority of people were against abortion so they had the right to impose their will? Majority rule is BAD for minorities.

    • Sand_Cat

      No, that’s likely more what YOU think. And Germany did not have majority rule. It was ruled by a bunch of very nasty crackpots who looked a lot like a certain party in modern-day America, perhaps the one to which you belong?

      • option31

        Well I don’t belong to a party, the both stink and are lead by crackpots and are followed by crackpots. My point is majority rule is a crazy idea and to advocate it will lead to major problems for minorities. You cannot be for majority rule on one thing and then try to claim minority rights on another and have anything resembling credibility. It is a slippery slope. Individual rights ( a individual is the ultimate minority ) are far more important than majority rule which is nothing more than mob rule. Which means if you have the power you run rough shod over who ever you want – basically a group of bullies. Of course nobody here wants to talk about that they’d rather take personal jabs. I’ll remind you here that the KKK ( a majority ) and other racists supported the black laws that kept blacks – a minority – from owning firearms and voting after the civil war.

        • Sand_Cat

          So what are you suggesting: dictatorship? Oligarchic rule by the self-designated “best” (which is what we have now)? I believe Winston Churchill was the one who said Democracy is absolutely the worst possible system, except for all the rest, or words to that effect.

          I have to disagree with you: one most certainly can be for majority rule with protection for majority rights. The protection of minority rights may fail at times, but what about the alternatives? The minority Nazis in Germany and Communists in the USSR don’t have much to brag about in protecting minority rights. And how could you even suggest that justice is served by defeating the will of the majority, even if it may be stupid or vicious at times?

          So I repeat my question: just what are you advocating?

          • option31

            HI Sand_Cat, well I see we have some agreement here — scary huh? yes you are right we have oligarchic rule now, dictatorship is where we are headed and that is just as bad if not worse, at least hopefully oligarcs realize they can’t kill the golden goose unlike dictators. I favor a republic over a democracy because in a republic rights violators public and private would be held accountable and the majority saying rights violations are okay would not hold up. I live in a area of the country in which the majority of people support law enforcement no matter what. Just recently we had 4 cops fired one for beating a citizen the other 3 entering a house illegally and evidence tampering for attempting to erase video. Apparently the mayor and chief of police could not justify their actions. People around here can’t believe the cops would be fired for doing their job, and the prosecutor – well he’s sitting on his hands hoping the storm blows over and he does not have to charge the cops. My daughter was arrested for video taping cops illegally entering a house. The prosecutor did drop the charges but still had to hire a attorney. People in town thought she was a terrible person because the majority say the cops were doing their job. I am not welcome in this town because I will not put up with the officials illegal activity – needless to say friend are few and far between. Under a republic – at least one I envison these law breaking cops would be charged, prosecuted and jailed no matter what the majority thought, and the victim reimbursed from the appropriate offenders budget. Equal justice for all government employee or common person is what we need. Idealistic I know but something to shoot for – pun intended.

          • Sand_Cat

            Are you sure we’ll last long enough to get to dictatorship?

          • option31

            No! its going to be a foot race… by late 2015 or so we’re toast, unless their are structural changes – which the pols won’t do becasue they want to hold onto power at all costs including destroying the country – we are following Greece/Cyrpess model. Once Europe is done collapsing we’re the last over ripe banana to fall from the tree.

  • DezJimmar

    You can trace all of this extremism right back to Faux Noise doorstep

  • Dorothy: I remember a joke showing the Republican view of the president’s position as Oz, behind the curtain, but with myriad more levers to pull than humanly possible. Thank you for realizing that image in real life. It’s totally frightening.

  • bcmugger

    Today its background checks, tomorrows its confiscation, you dont give communists and inch, they`ll take a mile.