DISQUS

Bruce Dixon, I hear you loud and clear.

S is for serpent.


I, for one, ignore serpents.

"Goerge Bush and John McCain are flip sides of the same coin and they still don't add up to much change."


Who wrote this speech?

Hillary, despite her nasty primary campaign, genuinely likes Barack. That's absolutely clear to me. And he likes her, too.


Don't throw tomatoes. I'm not warming to her, but I see what I see.

Keith Olbermann wrote an interesting diary on FISA.


Well, You Stumped Me

I'm not liking what I'm feeling from O lately. It doesn't feel like bravery or boldness or confidence...it feels like excessive calculation. Maybe he's carrying unresolved anger from the primary, and it's jamming the signal..LOL!


::



That's a funny last line, truthseeker.



He is calculating.



Is it excessive? That's in the eye of the beholder. I think it's necessary.

truthseeker, the press needs to unload on him. He's a crook. His supporters know it. That's why they can't stop talking about Barack. Barack doesn't deflect questions about his record by talking about McCain's. If someone has seen him do that, please post a link or a reference, because I haven't.


But McCain always does.



As his friends from back in the day will tell you, he's a fool and complete fraud.



And he's dangerous.



I dare someone to write his unauthorized biography.

I wonder why McCain finds it necessary to avoid answering questions about his own voting record and immediately tries to shift focus to that "extreme" Black guy.


Well, I don't wonder really.



I'd like to see an interviewer take him to task on all this focus-shifting he does.



Wanna see McCain's head explode? (I do.) Then someone needs to have the guts to say:



"We're not talking about Senator Obama right now, Senator. We're talking about you. Now answer the question."



And when the bile starts to rise, an interviewer needs to ask him about his fraudulent and illegal abuse of the public financing system in his primary campaign. And push him till he provides a real answer without changing the subject to, well, you know, the "extreme" Black guy.



McCain is stupid. And angry. And stupid. And dangerous. And unstable. And stupid. And dangerous.



And he's the Republican nominee for president.



For now.

b-serious,


I think Barack is faring well in the polls precisely because he pissed his base. Precisely because folks who though he might be a naive idealistic dreamer now see him as a shrewd politician who's playing to win and not just talk about hope and change.



The American voter is an interesting beast, full of contradictions and cynicism.



His opponents want to criticize him for flip flopping but they know that's part of the game of winning a presidential election.



Name one president who never changed his position on anything for political expediency.

This is not a race issue, this about the privacy and rights of everyone.


I'm all raced out!



::



Say it again.



Wasn't there a post here at JJP that asked if we were obsessed with racism and bigotry in this country?

McCain used to have a C- rating with the NRA. Today, his rating is perfect.


Politicians flip flop to win elections.



Next.

I completely disagree with b-serious and craig on this one.


Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is a tool that has the potential for misuse... just like I can run over you in my car.



::



Now that's an original response.



Neither one of us has argued otherwise. Neither of us is calling for a ban on guns. Neither of us talked crime rates.



If you disagree with us, then you might want to talk about Constitutional interpretation in general, Second Amendment interpretation in particular, individual rights vs. the rights of the state, and judicial activism vs. judicial restraint.



That's where we're coming from.



Don't get it twisted.

Barack's campaign statement on this matter is stupid. Clearly, he's afraid of losing the "bitter" voters.


He need not be.



He should stand his ground and simply argue that he is not opposed to people owning firearms, but that some limits are required for the safety of civil society and that is why has has supported the kinds of "common sense" laws that ban the types of weapons including in this Court's decision.



People can disagree on the interpreting the Constitution. The decision ws 5-4, not unanimous.



If Barack were a Justice, he might have voted with the minority.



He ought to stand his ground on this, explain his interpretation of the Second Amendment, and not fear losing votes.

The guns issue is exactly what Barack spoke about in his infamous bitter comment.


The Supreme Court has upheld a liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment. No matter what Barack feels about gun control, it doesn't really matter all that much anymore. He won't be able to take anybody's guns away from them anyway.



I don't think Presidents introduce gun legislation in local jurisdictions, do they?



And since he can't, there's no reason for any gunowners to be afraid that he would try to.



But, if this decision puts Guns above the economy and gas prices and healthcare in the minds of those who own guns, but live in poverty with no way out, well, then...



Let them cling to their guns, vote for McCain and remain in hell.

Daddy had two guns in our house. He kept one under the bed and would grab it whenever there was a noise in the middle of the night.


I identify guns with protecting family, although I really don't like them.



I don't own a gun either and never will.



The ruling upholds an interpretation of the Second Amendment at an individual right.



I do not interpret the Second Amendment that way at all. It seems very clear to me the right to keep and bear arms is tied to service in a state militia which is charged with ensuring the security of a free state.



Civilians with guns are not a necessary part of the security of a free state.



I'm not suggesting no one should own a gun. Nor am I disagreeing with rikyrah that gun control laws only protect criminals. I haven't read enough of them to know, but I'll take her at her word.



But laws that ban certain weapons under certain circumstances do not necessarily run afoul of even the most liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment.



And make no mistake, this decision is based upon an extremely liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I find it revealing that all these hot button issues, you know - God, Gays, and Guns - are being adjudicated during an election year.


What I can't wait to see is that when the FISA bill is heard by the Supreme Court as I believe it will, will the Court also uphold the Fourth Amendment.

From that Obamacon article:


"The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of 'Weekend With Bernie,' handcuffed to a corpse."



Wow.

donna l.,


Thank you for saying that better than I could have.



Nader may also be trying to appeal to those voters who had a problem with Barack's Father's Day speech.



Just a thought to add to the mix.



Could be a stretch, but desperate times....

"Affirmative action run amok"? When it comes to elections, there is no action more affirmative than receiving a majority of votes...which Obama did.


::



That's it right there.



And rikyrah, you nailed it. Work it out, lady. Work it out.

truthseeker,


It's the second time I've seen Barack be so blunt about Nader. He respects the guy. He thinks he ought to take his narcissism elsewhere.



From where I sit, Nader is trying to capitalize on the criticism by Black people about Barack's Father's Day speech.



If Nader type can insinuate that Barack is "selling out" to help fan the flames of some opinions among Black people that, in fact, Barack is, well, then....







I see him.

ptcruiser, you know exactly what I meant. I meant exactly what I said.


I don't agree with you.



And that's that.

So, who is this Joan Walsh?


She is certainly not the same Joan Walsh shilling for Hillary a month ago.



Is she?

ptcruiser, once again, we don't agree .


And that's that.



::



truthseeker, that was funny wasn't it?

Michelle,


I read that interview when it came out. And had no problem with it at all.



If a presidential candidate can say, "I don't believe in gay marriage, but I'll leave it up to individual states to figure out" then fine.



At least he wants to repeal all of DOMA and keep the issue out of the Constitution.



I don't always agree with Andrew Sullivan, but I've never known him to be this silly.

Barack just said that Ralph is just trying to get attention because his campaign hasn't gotten any traction.


"It is what it is."