Cars are being burned in France and Germany. Maybe these Mulsims hate cars. Get away from the cars!!

“San Francisco outlawed the ownership/selling of guns and ammo. Have any of these weirdos heard of the Constitution? Does the U.S. Constitution matter in California?”

I’ll bet that there will be more lawsuits filed against proposition 2 than there will be against this.

Anyway San Francisco just got struck off my places to visit. I’d hate to be a criminal in their city simply because I am exercising my CONSTITUTIONAL rights. I hope they don’t random search my trucking breathren, I know what alot of them carry for protection in their cabs and I promise you it ain’t mace.

Gregg……we need to send over some free oven mitts. That will stop the rioting.

Only in France would they say the burning of 500 cars is and “improvement”

Just think what the margin for passing Prop. 2 would have been if everyone voted. We know ALL the gays, lesbians and their supporters voted against it.

As far as France goes, rioters and looters always look for any excuse to do their dirty work. What better way to get that new TV.

San Francisco just told the crooks not to worry, the law abiding citizens cannot legally carry guns so they are safe to rob and kill at will.

I finally found a link I think is worth sharing.
http://www.theotheriraq.com/
Watch the video entitled “Thank you”

#2 Squawk, I am offended, you can’t be referring to me, given I have a second home in San Francisco ? Then again maybe you are. Ahhh well.

Feagan
#7
Awwww now Feagan, don’t take it personal, I don’t make it personal. I don’t dislike people from San Francisco or the people that live their. Why some of my best acquaintances are from San Francisco. ;~)

Even our cars and trucks are smarter than the ones in France. Ours catch fire on their own. http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/dontwasteyourmoney/1ca6c23b.html

As all know, I voted against Prop. 2 yesterday. It was, however, overwhelmingly approved. The people have spoken. Although I disagree with the outcome, I applaud the fact that the issue was settled by the people of Texas through a direct vote. Democracy works, even when one doesn’t like the outcome. That, in and of itself, was a good thing for Texans.
Crow, consider yourself eaten!

No Squawk, I don’t, I was really only kidding. San Francisco is really, hmmmm how shall I say ?, quite diverse. When I am there I am the radical right wing conservtive.

“Have any of these weirdos heard of the Constitution? Does the U.S. Constitution matter in California?”

Considering it’s a local law, and not a Federal law, I’m sure it doesn’t really matter. Plus, I thought “conservatives” were all about letting the people govern themselves. Isn’t that a big argument against Roe v Wade, and Federally recognizing gay marriage? That states should have the right to set the laws themselves?

Plus, the anti-handgun law was passed with OVERWHELMING support. That sounds like true Democracy in action.

Looks like Andrea Yates is going to get another trial.
http://my.ev1.net/english/news/newsarticle.asp?articleID=50016234&subject=headlines

I predict a crime increase in San Francisco. In England, which has similar laws, the burglars have no fear and will break in while you’re home!!

Maxwell #12 The Constitution does enumerate states rights to write their own laws, this is true. HOWEVER there are certain provisions in the Constitution called AMENDMENTS that trump state laws. The right to own firearms is one of those rights.

I am not going to argue Roe with you, I think you know my position. I would ask you where in the Constitution that a group of people that base their politics on a sexual act should be granted any rights over and above those provided by the Constitution? If a person is denied a job, housing, health-care, the right to keep and bare arms, access to the courts, the government, freedom to speak, worship as they see fit, gather where they wish, all because they are homosexual, there are laws against that already and those laws should be enforced. So what was your point again?

This handgun law could be argued till the cows come home. Yes the law was passed overwhelmingly, I doubt seriously there will be an increase in crime. I could cite many instances where gun laws are far stricter, and there is virtually no crime.

I could also argue the second amemndment. But that is one that no one will ever concede. I just wonder why only half the amenmendment is cited. Why does no one ever cite the amendment in it entirety ?

#12 - As squawkbox points out, states are given jurisdiction over things not expressly stated in the constitution. I believe the 2nd ammendment of the constitution is crystal clear about the right to keep and bear arms. Let’s see how the 9th circuit rules on SF’s new anti-gun laws. They find things in the constitution that aren’t there, will they not find things that are clearly there? I know where my money’s riding.

Oh this is sweet, Scooter has begun his very own legal defense fund. Now those that don’t care about the ethics, or potential damage caused by his actions can donate to help him pay the cost of defending the undefensible.

Whatever happened to the party of personal responsibility.

#16 - For the record:

“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.”

militia - An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

Still seems pretty cut and dry to me. Key phrase is “ordinary citizens”.

#16 Feagan
“I could cite many instances where gun laws are far stricter, and there is virtually no crime.”

Where?
Before you do may I counter with New York City, Washington DC, Great Britain, Sydney Australia, New Orleans. All places where strict gun laws have been instituted and crime went up rampantly and remains high.

Arizona has a more liberal concealed handgun law than Texas and crime is low. You and I have batted this one around before, add Switzerland to the low crime list because each household is required to have a weapon in their homes.

# 18 Feagan
Ummm could you not say the same thing about Wild Bill Clinton and his supporters?

OOOPS I said I would not do that sorry.

Bad Squawky, bad.

Massachusetts, a state that allows single sex marriage for its citizens, has a divorce rate of 2.4 per thousand. Texas , now with super double prohibited single sex marriage, has a divorce rate of 4.1 per thousand. How long do you want to bet that it will take the miraculous powers of Prop 2 to defend marriage in Texas up to the divorce rate of Massachusetts. I’ll put a fin on never.

Feagan is correct. People tend to ignore the part that says “well regulated”. One could argue that since their law only applies to handguns, and not to things like shotguns, San Fran residents still have the “right to keep and bear Arms” — they’ve only just been “regulated”, like the Amendment says.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state. You can’t very well have a well-regulated militia if you infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. Restricting gun ownership, by definition, infringes on that right.

#23 maxkelly
“well regulated” = organized. Has nothing to do with the weapons.

So what IS your problem that I choose to defend my self, property and family with a hangun?

#23

The text of the amendment says that the militia is regulated, not the arms or the right to keep and bear them.

Topless protesters: Just curious. Would this be classified as a “war chest” (a fight breaks out when they take off their tops), a “boobie-trap” (beware of falling boulders), or a metaphor for the sagging economy? Regardless, the gravity of the situation is obvious.

Maltboy! #27
Next time give a warning when you post something that funny. An official coffee spew has occured on this end.

We need to have a gun if for nothing else to shoot rioting Muslims trying to burn my car.

I think our insurance companies have disclaimers in auto policies with regards to acts of war and riots.

If they wont pay for the damage I am going to shoot more than one of the bastards.He He.

#23

Once again, a History Lesson is in order. And those of you well familiar with defining the meaning of the word “is” should be able to follow:

One must go to the ORIGINAL meaning of the phrase “Regulated” as it applies in the time the document was written. Contrary to the current meaning of “Regulated” meaning “Controlled by the Government,” the meaning of the drafters in this case refers to doing theings “Per Regulation” in the military sense. Not only that, but it refers to the meaning of the word in the military sense of the times.

“Regulated” in the military sense of the times meant “Well Practiced.”

Now, we couple that with the meaning of the word “militia,” which #19 hits precisely as :

“militia - An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.”

Thus, we translate the original:

“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.”

As meaning in modern parlance:

“Citizens, well practised in the use of firearms, rather than a Professional Army, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

You must also include in today’s debate the fact that one of the raging debates of the time was whether or not the new Government was going to establish a Standing Army, something which many of the drafters found to be anathma, having just recently thrown off the yoke of an Empire which controlled it’s citizens by using it’s large Standing Army.

Once one factors this in, it is clear the the Original Intent (there’s those words again) of the drafters was to providxe the citizens with the means and the right to defend themselves against even their government, should it become one that is not “…constituted to secure…” rights endowed upon them by thier Creator.

This was further confirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1920’s when it determined that Citizens have the right to own those weapons normally found in the posession of individual soldiers, thus making the ownership of machine guns legal, but not those weapons which are operated by large numbers of men, such as submarines and battleships.

And yes, machine guns are legal, any citizen can own them, but they must pay a tax.

#22 - prohibition of gay marriage and divorce rates are completely separate issues.

#31

Sir you are correct…see yesterday’s posts for the meaning of “Straw man argument”

#32) Not if one’s aim is the “defense of marriage”.

Willie;

The “Defesne of Marriage Act” was a federal effort in the Congress.

Proposition 2 was an effort by the citize of the State to define the meaing of “Marriage”

RE: France.

I found amusing the article on Drudge yesterday that France was “offended” by the worldwide repoting on the riots and the accompanying criticism. Are they not the first to lead the way in criticism and to lecture the rest of the world on any given topic, especially the US? The last straw apparently was when some media outlet referred to the riots as “France’s Katrina.” Boo hoo.

RE: Prop 2

It was a no brainer. I did not find in the ballot initiative any mention of a “gay marriage ban” though. Just the obvious that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

RE: San Francisco

Hate to admit I used to live there for some time out of necessity. I came to Texas as fast as I could. Don’t miss it one bit. Now I have one more reason not to go back.

# 29

Excellent Point

# 30

Excellent Point

# 22, # 31, # 32

Difference between the left and right…

And briefly on SF Cali.. If I was a criminal thats where I would go to conduct my trade now… I think we need to teach people to use and respect guns not limit the law abiding citizens to being defenseless now.

The left simply cheats on their spouse while married…

The right divorces first, THEN has the affair, which isn’t an affair because they divorced first… nice and neat…

Either way I could point out from past blogs where that was one of the “For Prop 2″ arguements for defense of 1 man 1 woman only marriage Prop.

Oh wanted to add…

No one will ever riot in Switzerland… say yes to hand guns, say no to appeasement…

Yes, Sarge, I am well aware of that. My point in saying that is that defending the sanctity of marriage was the main reason proponents of Prop. 2 used as a basis for their position. I think the argument (counter-point) is that if we were truly concerned about the strength of marriages and the importance we place on families, then tackling the 50% + divorce rate would have a much greater and more immediate impact on preserving families, and thereby strengthening marriages, than we could ever hope to achieve by outlawing same-sex marriages.

I have a new topic:
With President Bush’s approval ratings at Nixon/Watergate era levels (37%), how would you advise Mr. Bush on how to improve them? What steps would you take?

In the spirit of fair play, here goes my advice for Mr. Bush:
1) Tackle illegal immigration immediately. Forget the “fence along the Mexican border idea” being floated on Capitol Hill. It would be a financial boondoogle and tunnels would render it useless within months. Concentrate on toughening federal law concerning the hiring of illegals (real prison-time for repeat offenders). Make the states step up by tying federal money into actual, tangible changes in existing state law, similar to what Mr. Reagan did with the drinking age issue in the 1980’s. Put economic santions on Mr. Fox’s government until you begin to see real progress in the Mexican effort on their side of the border.
Lead on this one, Mr. President, or resign yourself to the “mexicanization” of the American border states (something no sane person desires).
2) Use the power of your veto (something you’ve never done) to demand that Congress reallocate pork spending towards the rebuilding of Louisiana and Mississippi. Do not pay for the reconstruction of this area by limiting the sacrifices made to only the poor. Put the prescription drug plan on hold and use this money. Hold off on making your tax cuts permanent and use that as well. The public will respect your fiscal wisdom and the sacrifices will be shared by all.
3) Clean house at the White House. Mr. Reagan did this after Iran-Contra to his ever-lasting credit. If you fail to do so, you will reinforce the prevailing notion that you value loyalty over ethical behavior. A new team might also bring in new ideas, ideas that are desperately needed right now. Your agenda, and hence your legacy, is now DOA at Congress. There’s a reason no one wants you to campaign for them. Recognize that and re-organize. It’s not too late.

There, those would be my top three. Iraq is an animal all its own. That might be my number 4, but brevity prevents me from getting into that.

Willie,

The President should just ignore those polls, he isn’t running for any office. He should do what he thinks is right and be judged on that. How would you like to be judged on what someone else thinks you should have done. The presidency is not run by committee or some silly poll. It is run by one elected person, doing what he thinks is good for the country and the majority of people who elected him. Remember only history will tell if President Bush did the right thing not some “moment in time” poll.

#39 Willie,

Bush still has a way to go to reach Nixon. And Carter, for that matter.

Career Lows

San Francisco doesn’t need no stinken constitution - they have the 9th circuit court.

#33 - Yes, the argument in 22 is a straw man even if “defense of marriage” is the goal. Why? Because as many problems as marriage has in the US today, enabling gay marriage would compound them by deteriorating the definition of marriage itself and accordingly inflict harm on society.

Willie;

I would agree with your 3 steps, but only because they are the right thing to do, not because of the polls. My advice to the current Pres regarding the polls would be to treat them the same way the last Wartime President who had similar numbers.

Anybody know who that is?

Now it’s a History TEST!

Willie #40
2) The tax cuts worked. The gov. collected more revenues than ever.

On tackling the divorce rate:

The first step is always definition of the problem.

The first step therefore would be to define marraige before one can determine how to keep them together.

Willie, Bush has a 36% approval rating, more Americans think he is Not trustworthy.

What advise, how about honesty.

Bush 41.

I think the two things bringing down Bush’s numbers are the war in Iraq and the high gas prices.

Part of the problem Bush is having with the Iraq war is that the American culture has taught people that things can be resolved in a short amount of time. We’ve been in Iraq less than 3 years.

While gas prices are high in absolute terms, they aren’t the highest in inflation adjusted dollars. Sorry I don’t have a link. Something I heard an economist talking about on the radio a few days ago.

#40 - I agree with many of your points, with a notable exception:

Hold off on making your tax cuts permanent and use that as well.

Significantly reduced spending, across the board, is the answer to this one. “Holding off on making tax cuts permanent” is just a different way of saying “raise taxes back to their previous levels”…

Watching Bush now on CNN. What is the topic that is most important to him. Hmmmmmm gee the earthquake in Pakistan. Now no one will dispute that is an important topic, but gee was that what a month ago.

This guy is something.

#48 and yet, despite the low approval rating, Bush still has to lead. That’s what leaders do. If there is a reasonable response to the low numbers, it is to put his head down and work harder than ever to do what he thinks is right.

Real leadership kicks in in situations like these, and this is the test I hope that Bush passes.

Now obviously, you and I are going to differ on what actions Bush can take to exhibit real leadership…

#51 - c’mon. What’s the context of Bush’s speech? The man has a lot of plates to keep spinning, don’t bash him because he just happens to be speaking about a topic other than your top priority.

Not blind defense here (the man is certainly accountable to us for his actions, and needs to focus resources appropriately), but it seems that you are just looking for things to pick at.

Jim, He can start by doing something that is totally against who he is. He can be honest.

Jim, His admin has been accused of running “Black Prisions”, One of his top advisors has been indicted, the Senate leadership has just said thru Trent Lott that they leaked classified information, Communities in LA, Miss and Tex are still struggeling to rebuild. We lost four soldiers yesterday.

What was the context of his speach. the suffering in due to the earthquake.

Oh yeah, and his Sec of State was meeting with an accused spy for Iran, the same guy that gave us all that intel on how we would be welcomed in Iraq. Bet we don’t see any photo opps with Condi.

Feagan #51

May I please paraphrase your post? Thanks I knew you wouldn’t mind. Bold indicates my changes.

Watching the Libs now on TV and here on LST. What is the topic that is most important to them. Hmmmmmm gee the war is illegal, Bush lied. Now no one will dispute that is an important topic, but gee was’nt that harped on adnauseum for the past three years?

You guys are something.

Thank’s man I could not have done that without ya.

Squawk, come on man, you disapoint me. The war in Iraq is the most important topic of the day. Every day, seemingly, we hear more and more about how the Admin misled us into this war.

Your point pales I mean really pales in compairison to GWB talking about a month old earthquake story.

The repubs are scared to death to be seen with GWB

IMUS: Would you just answer my question, would you like [President Bush] to come to Arizona and cut campaign commercials and run them on those TV stations everywhere?

REP. HAYWORTH: In a word, no. At this time

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/331qbked.asp

Comments?

Wait there is more proof

“By landing Air Force One in Richmond, Va., for an election eve rally with Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore, George W. Bush guaranteed that the results of the Virginia governor’s race would be viewed as a referendum on his presidency. Here it is: In what was supposed to be a close race, Kilgore lost to Democrat Tim Kaine by a margin of 52 to 46 percent. “Several GOP supporters conceded that the party’s inability to recapture the executive mansion reflected dissatisfaction with President Bush,” says the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

“St Paul, Minn.Former City Council member Chris Coleman ousted Mayor Randy Kelly by an embarrassing 38-point margin, and even Kelly said that the reason for his loss was his support for the president”

Aw c’mon guys. I know History Tests are never popular, especially pop quizzes like the one I gave aboe.

But doesn anybody care to gues which Wartime Presidnet had poll numbers as low as, if not lower than, the current Wartime President?

Anybody?

A hall pass to the first one with the right answer….

Again, you’re going Michael Moore with the facts. I am at work overpsending my lunch period, so I can’t watch live CNN coverage, but there are still times where the man is going to have to talk about month-old earthquakes, or some such nonsense. It is part of the man’s job. Besides, I could (and have) argue all day long that the man isn’t as sinister as you want him to be.

#61 what’s your source?

#30 sargevining - Bravo Bravo - Fantasic…

Here is where to find the whole bill of rights.
The framers did write the constitution to be plain and simple for the common man to understand.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

“Republicans are not so angry at the president that they want to vote for the other guy. They just stayed home,” said GOP consultant Rich Galen.

“The one bright spot for my party,” joked Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, “is that the tab for the victory party at the Republican headquarters will be much smaller than if we had won.”

Polls had Kilgore tied with Kaine headed into the final day when Bush flew from Panama to Virginia and laid his bets. It was a risky decision, ensuring that the president would be blamed for a Kilgore defeat. White House officials said Bush might as well go because in the current environment he would be blamed anyhow.

Sorry boys its getting ugly for y’all

#59;
Come on now, don’t hold back. Just come out and admit the fact that you are just another Bush basher. We all know what you are going to say befor you….oh what the heck…never mind.
How about the borders being a hot topic? Don’t hear any dem’s talking much about that. Too many hispanic voters to offend.
All those “black” prisons? sounds like the dem’s have become more racist than we thought.
rj

rj

Jim,

Quote from the man himself. J.D. Hayworth.

Quote from former Mayor Kelly.

Richmond Times Dispatch

GOP consultant Rich Galen

Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas

Seems pretty obvious

Ok RJ, I admit the borders are a “hot” topic and Bush has done what ?

I have no respect for Bush, I never tried to hide that. I think this is one of the most corrupt admins in history. Bush is a disaster.

OK;

The President whose poll numbers were just as bad as GWBs was…….

Abraham Lincoln

Another guy who did the right thing no matter how his political enemies tried to paint him as evil and stupid.

Just another principaled Republican

Marriage is between man and woman! win win

Second Amendment has been trampled on for years. SF is just another symptom of a falling nation.

The big news is that Cali just voted to destroy itself via more spending, taxing, etc.

As goes Cali so goes the nation.

Bush’s numbers are in the tank because he is a louse of a leader. He is a disappointment to most conservatives!

Without 9/11, terror he is nothing.

Its the borders bozo!

Please source your “poll” numbers regarding Lincoln.

Feagan
I am bored with this whole thing. Operative word is bored. Same old thing day in and day out. I have given you the links to the Congressional Record. During The Clinton administration through 2000
Kerry
Gore
Lieberman
Kennedy
Gephart
Daschle
Clinton
(and many more of the Democratic persuasion)
stood on the floor of the Senate as far back as the records readily available show (1994 through 1999) extolling fear and concern about Saddam Hussein. They all spoke of having seen reports saying the man was a clear and present danger to his people, his neighbors the United States and the world. They all spoke that he should be removed and war was a viable option.

I have given you links showing reports as far back as 1978 showing and documenting the progressive role of Iraq and Saddam in league with Terrorists that have then and are now moving world wide. No it does not say Al Qaeda. You can plot on a graph the highs and lows and highs again of his involvement via monetary and physical support over the years.

Go read it for yourself and then come back and tell me who is lying. I am bored with this constant game playing of NIGYSOB by the liberals and the main stream media.

Squawk, I have agreed with you. Everyone thought there were WMD’s. Ok. Point Dems believed in Containment. Not war. and you know what. we were proven right. It appears the Containment strategy worked.

LST et al.

“Squawk, come on man, you disapoint me. The war in Iraq is the most important topic of the day. Every day, seemingly, we hear more and more about how the Admin misled us into this war.”

Feagan while I agree with you 95% the time…

I’d have to say right now the most important issues that NEED to be addressed in a no BS way is border security and healthcare.

Secondary priorities would be a shake up at the UN and some real solutions to education both in quality and pay scales and budgets in our public schools. probably more at the state level but the Pres can lead

Finally…

I would say the president is Abraham Lincoln? Sarge

A shake up at the UN!

Now we are talking.

Why is Kofi and company not in a prison somewhere?

Ok JeffD, I might be pursuaded on the border issue, then why in the world was Bush talking about the earthquake ?

Feagan
“Point Dems believed in Containment”

As did the Republicans but there came a time when the War option became prevalent in the debates. Kerry himself made a speech on the Floor in 2000 that Saddam was dangerous and that the American people deserved better than what was being done. He spoke of Our planes being fired at in the no fly zone, payments to PLO terrorist, continuing death of the Iraqi people and (now sit down I don’t want you to hurt yourself) OIL SUPPLY SECURITY. This is not “just” about WMDs.

Maybe GWB is planning a earthquake for France? He succeded with the hurricanes afterall!

I am reminded of a quote, on of my favorites…I beleive it is from Oscar Wilde:

“I normally make it a practise no to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but in your case I have made an exception.”

jeffd #75
I have no argument with you about what is important. Really I do not. My last sentence in the post #73 really was my main point.

Sarge, I am reminded that you on at least five or six occaisions stated that Wilson said Cheney sent him to Niger. I ask you at least four times for the source of that information. You then in frustration admitted you had no source.

Now you claim that Lincoln had low poll numbers like Bush. So I ask for a source. I mean really how did they poll the citizens.

Will you again admit you have no source, that you are again wrong ?

But thanks for the quote. I was thinking that.

#47

From Merrian-Webster Online Dictionay:

Marriage 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

There ,done. Just looking it up would have been a heck of a lot quicker and cheaper than an election for Prop 2.

WOW!!

This Lincoln stuff is really important to you…..

No, honest debate is. I source my information. You do not. You make statements that have in the past been proven to be, how can I say this without Squawk donning his moderators hat, false.

No.. No…

Sqawk my comments in # 75 was that while I think the justification for war was a sham like feagen. But I think at this point truth or not it is a moot point as we are there and need to do right. I was just stating that there are now more pressing issues to deal with…

But I agree with the CIA running black prisions we need more of them! I just hope that those who disappear in them are truly guilty of terror or planning terror and not innocent people such as those thrown in the Soviet gulags or the Nazi concentration camps. After living through attacks in NYC and seeing what is happening in Europe illegal immigration and terror unchecked is a horrfying thing.

I am not against immigration as most of my family are immigrants, but people have to come the legal way and be prepared to make a contribution to and become part of the society they are moving to. Use democracy to change what they don’t like and respect the rights of other law abiding citizens.

#75

Jeff;

Although technically I had posted the answer before you, in the spirit of modern day Public Education I shall award you with the Golden “H” for Historical excellence.

Try and explain it to Feagan, please, things are busy here at Capitalist Corner this afternoon.

You are now in charge of the Class…..

Squawkbox,

#2

I have been busy all day, and just saw that post.

It is baloney!

Back in 1982, I had an office off the Embarcadero in San Fransicko, at the time a ban on pistols was proposed by then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein and enacted by the Liberal Board of Supervisors in the wake of the murders of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, the ban was rejected by the California Court of Appeals.

That’s where the “twinkie defense” (dininished capacity) was first tried.

Taxpayers were allowed to keep thier pistols, but were shouldered with the bond costs for the Moscone Convention Center.

They actaully did polling back in Lincolns day and it is documented (A Dale Carangie Book) and other palces that he was an extremely unpopular lawyer/politician/president.

According to the book literally one day after a friend called him out for being such an “jerk” put mildly as children may be around… he changed.. did a complete 180 and became a great president and decent human being corteous… kind… cheerful… sort of thing.

I find Lincoln to be a fascinating man. Wish we could clone him. He’d be much better then the last 20 or so stooges we’ve had in office.

Jeff, thank you. I am actually reading a Carnegie book now. I am interested to see this information.

funny you had a source but Sarge did not.

So Jeff, do I get this right, if someone would just do the right thing and call Bush a “jerk” there might still be hope for our nation ?

jeffd #86
We agree on all points, Which I knew we did. My rant in #73 was more of a lashing out against the MSM and the Democratic leadership. There are two things IMO that is going to kill our country
1. Political Correctness (ala France)
2. Political Gamesmanship (NIGYSOB)

Royko #88
I hope history repeats itself. I like cheese with my baloney BTW.

Squawk, I agree. Remember our previous discussions. I said throw all the b….ds out.

But it is my opinion, which I believe has been proven, that GWB is not honest, and his admin is corrupt. That is not from the MSM as you put it, or an attmept at gamesmanship

Well there will be hope in 2008 for our country that is for sure.

Problem I see is we are so divided as a country that nothing significant will ever be accomplished because of so much special interest…

#68 - links, please. I would like to read them in their context…

Wow, you guys are going!

#41) Robert:
You stated that the president should not govern by polls. I agree totally. He needs to lead, not photo op, which is what got him into this in the first place (see Katrina). With the war (more than oil prices) draining his support-both with the public and with the GOP controlled Congress-, he needs to address the nation-in prime time- on a regular basis (once a month?), similar to what FDR did with the fireside chats. Recognize there is “spin” (for lack of a better term) concerning Iraq and stay in front of it; eliminate the middle man (MSM) and go directly to the people. Tell them about all the good we are doing in Iraq. Gains are being made, not quickly enough for a public trained on instant gratification, but slowly, and hopefully, deeply.
Admit mistakes in the war effort and tell the American people how you’re gonna fix ‘em. Be honest. Keep American ideals in the fore. Sign McCain’s torture bill and proclaim for one and all to hear that, as for morality, Americans will not sink to the level of al-Qaeda. We will not become our enemy, we will transcend him.
The nation is crying our for this kind of leadership. While I do not have much confidence that Mr. Bush is capable of this, I pray that he is, as should all Americans, regardless of how we got to where we are.

#83 - WELL - you have cleared it up for everybody! I guess we should have read M-W’s ridiculously PC definition of marriage before going to the polls yesterday, no?

#44) jimb: must respectfully disagree. You assume that gay marriage would deteriorate the definition of marriage and harm society, but that is your opinion, an opinion shared by the majority of Texans, but an opinion nevertheless.

Russia’s answer to the Riots in France….

http://mosnews.com/news/2005/11/09/zhirinhelp.shtml

hmmmmm

#46) Don:
Agreed. “After all, we are not communists.” (quick trivia: What character said that and in what movie?). Notice I didn’t say eliminate them. Bush could cut a deal with the Democrats and moderate Republicans by targeting just one year of the extra revenue brought in by the tax cuts to the Katrina rebuilding in exchange for their votes on making them permanent. He would get his tax cuts made permanent, not have to borrow to rebuild, and come out as a fiscally sound, compassionate conservative. What would there be to lose? It’s a win win. This is what I was talking about earlier when I said that he should stay out in front of issues. Be pro-active, not re-active. That’s leadership.

Sorry Feagan, I just thought that the fact that half the country seceded from the Union because he was elected would be enough to convince even those with only a casual aquaintance with History would agree. He was, after all, elected, even though he did not receive a majority of the vote.

Lincoln was incredibly unpopular, not only with the opposition party, but among his own. The rhetoric of those against him makes that against GWB pale in comparison.

I doubt that you will find any scholar familiar with the Civil War and/or his Presidency and his politics that would claim he was popular…until the day after he was assinated.

#47) C’mon sarge. The divorce rate was skyrocketing long before there was any attempt to “re-define” marriage.
Shoot, if you want to increase marriage and lower divorces, give married couples an economic incentive to staying married. Eliminate the marriage penalty and give married folks a tax break come April 15th. I guarantee you the divorce rate will start declining.

Given my past contention here at LST that the division of power between the Republican Congress and the Clinton Whitehouse may have actually worked for the better in some ironic way, this is an interesting opinion piece from a guy that I generally disagree with:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174977,00.html

Sarge, I understand that Lincoln was un popular with a great many people. You cited polls. You sometimes cite things that don’t exist. Then you get a little testy when called on it.

#50) jimb:
Agreed. As a taxpayer myself, I’m ALL in favor of tax cuts. If somehow we could tie tax cuts directly into spending cuts…well, then we’d surely have something. Sad to say, that hasn’t been our recent history. I hate debts. I’d rather reduce spending than borrow. This President and this Congress doesn’t seem to feel this way. It all starts with Mr. Bush. He could tell Congress…”I won’t sign a budget that isn’t balanced” and mean it. He’s yet to veto one bill in almost five years. With runaway spending, that is unconscionable.

#101: Don Emilio Barzini in “The Godfather,” played by Richard Conte.

Come on, man, gimme somethin’ tough!

104) jimb:
Good piece. You and I have agreed on that many times in the past.

# 102

He was gaining popularity in the North after his gettyburg address, but it wasn’t until 50 - 100 years after his death that he is remembered as a great president.

# 103

I agree the majority of divorcees cite financial/economic troubles as the number 1 reason for their divorce.

107): Matt, you are ‘da man! Even I didn’t know his first name. You got that from Puzo, right?

# 83,

Webster’s is obviously editorializing the definition. Law.com Legal Dictionary defines marriage as:

“the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license. . .”

So why did they have to throw in “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage”? I guess ALL of academia is basically liberals with an agenda.

In all of the election news this struck me as quite interesting.

Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: November 9, 2005

All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy.

#30 i aplaud you and the time it took to think that up

Sarge, please define “arms” for me. Vis a Vis the 2nd amendment.

I am not an anti gun fanatic. In fact I am “well practiced” (to use your terms) up to and including M16.

I am just curious what your definition of arms is, and where you draw the line, and why.

I believe the sky must be falling. JimB is citing a Democrat. Man that is real progress

#105

Feagan;

Your methodology regarding the conduct of intellectual discourse is characterized by the same approach that encumbers your facility to induce others to concur with your political philosophy.

You merely resort to games of “gotcha” on the technical level, rather than intelligently and logically defending your core concept or in challenging those of your opponent.

Are you saying that because I asked a technically trick question by using the word “polls” (and I could use your gotcha tactic by pointing out that it was the people who voted in the majority against him did so at “the polls, but I won’t) obviates the central theme of my assertion that Mr. Bush is doing what he sees as right vis a vis establishing a Democracy in Iraq where Muslims who do not agree with the violent means of the Terrorists can live in peace and safety, governed as a nation under the Rule of Law, and the protection of the most Powerful Nation on earth is roughly akin to the principaled stand that Lincoln took in the face of opposition from those in within and without his own party regarding Civl Rights?

Sarge I made my point regarding your use of polls. You find it convienent to ignore my point.

Now please answer my above question.

Sarge one quick question regarding your attempt to defend your use of faulty citations.

If in fact Mr. Bush is doing what he thinks is right by establishing a democracy in Iraq, then why did he feel the need to mislead us into this war. Why did he not from the start say, He I want to establish a democracy in Iraq.

Sarge second thought, “governed” by what. An accused spy ? You have chosen not to address my many posts re. Mr. Chalabi. So he is the man that will govern and lead this peacful transition to Democratic Bliss.

yay i fell out of bed thismorning and was quite happy that prop 2 was passed and when people were for it i asked them most of which who were straight this question:

immagine that you are out to dinner with your *insert proper opposite sex affiliate here* and you are having a romantic night eating by candal light with a single rose on the table and as the waiter comes with you appitieser you look over to the left and see 2 guys making out at the table next to you… how much would you eat

there responce as i’m sure some of yours is: “but gay people are still going to be around just not maried.”

well for all of you who think that the more we accept gays the more we will see them and well you can figure it out.

Sarge here are but a few quick snippets into the man that is here in Washington now. He is here representing the New Iraqi government that you hail.

Ahmed Chalabi

From the BBC

“There are also allegations of financial misdemeanours. In 1992, he was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison with hard labour for bank fraud after the 1990 collapse of Petra Bank, which he had founded in 1977.”

From CBS news

“Sources have told CBS News that Chalabi tipped Iran to the fact that the codes have been broken, saying he had gotten the information from an unidentified American.”

#120

Personally any PDA no matter who it be affects me the same, either way hetero or hom i’d rather not see it at dinner.

#121

Feagan I agree

Chalabi is a bad man vwery vwery baddddddd………
He’ll probably end up in 10 years as someone we needed to neutralize but didn’t… like saddami or osami…

were do we find all these people under a wet rock?

UGH! Not again!

And to think… just yesterday we were discussing two hot NFL cheerleaders getting busy in public. I long for the old days.

#115 - You should know better than that. If a liberal says so