Today's edition of quick hits:
* Vice President Biden spoke at a conference on gun control in Connecticut earlier today, and issued a challenge to critics of the administration's efforts to reduce gun violence.
* Syria: "A car bomb that detonated at a checkpoint near Baath party headquarters in Damascus set off a huge explosion Thursday, killing dozens and and wounding more than 200, opposition groups said."
* With a week to go, he's still trying: "President Obama on Thursday phoned Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the impasse surrounding $85 billion in automatic spending cuts set to hit the government on March 1."
* Predictable bluster: "North Korea has bolstered its defenses against a 'hostile' United States with its third nuclear test, it said on Thursday, noting that countries that had bowed to U.S. pressure to abandon their nuclear plans had suffered 'tragic consequences.'"
* An ugly moment: "Constituents at a town hall hosted by Sen. John McCain Wednesday in Phoenix cheered after the Arizona Republican told the mother of an Aurora, Colo. shooting victim that an assault weapons ban could not get through Congress."
* Interesting statistic: "Treasury Secretary nominee Jack Lew,"has answered more written questions than any every Treasury nominee since 1995 combined, a key sign of how hard Republicans in the Senate are pressing the current White House Chief of Staff in the run up to his confirmation fight."
* The RNC is pushing a video that takes President Obama "wildly out of context"? It must be a day that ends in "y."
* While the Supreme Court hears a Republican challenge to the Voting Rights Act, Congress will unveil a Rosa Parks statue.
* Rush Limbaugh is "ashamed" of the United States. What an odd thing to say.
* Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) believes Americans need guns to stop those "who think Sharia Law should be the law of the land." That's even odder than Limbaugh.
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Leave a Comment:
I think that guns may be needed to stop anyone who believes that anyone is trying to make Sharia Law the law of the land.
OMG. get over the paranoia. If there will ever be Sharia law in this county it will be on the right. Sad!
It's just nuts the way people are getting obsessed with this Sharia Law business. This is the USA and we have a Constitution which each and every politician pledges to uphold. Get real. And if you are that afraid move to a cloistered convent on a deserted island, there you can be safe.
Biden has "Challenged" Critics,,ohhhhh, well i guess he means buisness then!
Too cute!
"Why is it the progressive liberal
who steals guns then goes and kills movie goers and children in school has never
been a NRA member?"
Ft
Hood - Registered Democrat- Muslim
Columbine
- Too young to vote - both families were registered democrats and progressive
liberals
VA
Tech - Wrote hate mail to Pres Bush and to his staff. Registered
Democrat
Colorado
Theater - Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, occupy wall
street participant, progressive liberal
Connecticut
School Shooter - Registered Democrat, hated Christians
Common
thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal
democrats."
Interesting...isn't
it? Maybe we should ban Democrats instead of guns!
At least in one case -- the VA Tech shooter -- you're wrong; we do not register by party in VA. Which makes me suspect that you might be wrong in all other cases as well.
Because they can't put anything on Townhall.com or in an email that ends with "please send this to everyone you know!" if it isn't true.
It woyuld seem that really has proven to us that the right will lie though.
O'Really?
Aha an open thread with which to sew(sow) this idea.
I had a thought(it happens from time to time, though I am usually considerate enough to keep it to myself). What if someone was to start up a site called yapaway.com? No rules or topics, just an invitation to anyone who has something to say to go ahead and say it.
Imagine the various posts that could appear. Anything from gibberish sent by persons unknown that make you wonder if they actually typed it or found a program that translates baboon into English all the way into realms of pure genius.A record of our times and a source of amusement on a cloudy day.
Bah, there are plenty of sites to amuse us already.
Joe Biden, what if the intruder doesn't leave when you fire your double barrel ? What if you give away your position with noise and muzzle flash?
Good Lord, I hope Obama is in good health. This man is a walking gaffe. He makes Bush look like Stephen Hawking ladies.
You're another one of those with a 45,000 square foot house? Must be fun playing hide-n-seek...
If you can't hit someone with two shots from a twelve gauge then a) you loaded it up with deer slug instead of buckshot and thus are too dumb to be trusted with a gun, b) you used buckshot and are such a poor shot that additional rounds would only create more opportunities for you to kill yourself or a family member by accident, and are thus too dumb to be trusted with a gun, c) the person you shot at was too far away for you to be legally entitled to shoot them anyway, meaning you are too dumb to be trusted with a gun.
But if you are so damn worried about having to face down that hoard of meth addicted zombie apocalypse post tornado looters with only two shots, get a damn pump action. But Joe's larger point, which is that there is not one single self-defense scenario, the situations you people hypothicate as the reason you need AR-15s and thirty round magazines, where a shotgun would not be, by far, the superior and preferable weapon. His point is that AR-15s are optimized for shooting people, and people specifically, at distances that far exceed the distance at which a civilian is legally allowed to claim self-defense.
If you are in a situation where the AR 15 is the optimum self-defense weapon, what you're really in is a situation where you should call 911, grab a shotgun, find a defensible position and wait.
It should be remembered that it will still be acceptable to use a mini-14, so long as it doesn't have a collapsable stock. Wonder if a burglar getting hit be a mini-14 223 feels different than a burglar getting hit by an AR-15 223? But I do like Joe's uggestion hat we all go buy a shotgun.
@magnolia. After you've fired your double barrel at him, the intruder is not supposed to be able to leave. If he's still ambulatory, then you should request refunds on: your gun, your shooting classes, and your spectacles.
@ Steve (and Joe Biden, for that matter):
Your point is well-taken regarding using shotguns for home defense. Agreed 100%.
But the Republican/NRA point of view is that these assault rifles aren't just for home defense. They are a deterrent against government tyranny. If the government knows the citizenry is well armed, then that would be a deterrent against heavy-handednesss, both on an individual basis (storming your house) and population wide (widespread oppression).
I used to believe in this mantra, but as I get older you start to wonder if this is still warranted. As we see more and more violence with these high powered weapons it just doesn't seem to make sense any more.
Times have changed. An AR15 isn't a good defense against a drone attack. Nor is a shotgun.
Lew was even asked questions about Benghazi. WTF does the Department of the Treasury have to do with Benghazi?!!! I haven't heard yet one of these Republican Senators ask a question that actually has bearing on the position the candidate is up for.
Ambassador is a paid position. Money is printed by the US Mint, which is a part of the Treasury. Money is the root of all evil. See? It all ties together like an elaborate Glenn Beckian diagram! Worship the chalkboard! Worship the chalkboard!
Yes- they need to just focus on his off-shore bank accounts...
And the money has a pyramid on it. Sharia!
For as far back as I can remember, it's always inevitably "an ugly moment" when a crowd of conservatives cheer for something. That might sound like partisan hyperbole, but I can't remember the last time I actually heard a crowd of conservatives cheer for anything that didn't include the potential to badly 'hurt some people.'
How about when conservatives vote for a tax cut? I have no doubt when liberals call for a tax hike, it's to hurt some taxpayers. It certainly isn't to do anything constructive.
Yeah, those Bush tax cuts worked out great for America, didn't they? All that job growth and income growth during his presidency, the soaring budget surpluses. Boy, that was totally worth cheering.
Actually they did create employment as you can easily see here starting in 2003 when the cuts kicked in. We has a couple things like the market bubble bust and 9/11 slow things a bit.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Decade-NFP-.jpg
As a matter of fact, when I got my first Bush "free money" check all I could think was why am I getting "free money" when we're at war with another nation? That's Shooter though, "free stuff from tax cuts and roads will pave them-@!$%#ing-selves!"..
@Shooter - when Republicans cheer for a GOP-proposed tax cut, they don't realize it's only a tax cut for the Kochs and Sheldon Adelsons, and it's actually a tax hike on them. And if you're trying to convince me that said Kochs and Adelsons are going to miss a meal or a private jet trip because they're asked to pay at least the same rate in taxes as their various aides and assistants -- fuggedaboutit.
Shooter,
So you are now in favor of 'Uncle Sugar'? Cutting taxes while increasing programs and fighting a war; Uncle Sugar had something for everyone!
Do you even pause long enough to think about what you are typing?
Or is it all just some sort of stream-of-unconsciousness kinda of thing?
Oh, and btw, the uptick in employment in 2003 was primarily due to calling up the National Guard to combat duty in Iraq.
You see, when the Commander-in-Chief's service record is drinking away his flight privileges while serving in an air national guard unit designed to protect the well-connected from real service, it is politically untenable to activate the draft. So, the National Guard has to serve again, and again, and again...
...and all their civilian jobs have to be filled by someone else. Economic development by means of redistribution of jobs of middle class and working class stiffs.
Steve- why hasn't Obama proposed eliminatin the Bush tax cuts, top to bottom, if thy are as bad as you depict? Doesn't that make Obama as bad as GWB?
Rusty - because he's not stupid enough to believe that he could ever get that past the troglodytes? Or because he knows this isn't the time for austerity? We've answered this before. We try to educate you, but you just won't listen.
George, the fact hat Obama doesn't want to eliminate the bush tax cuts is exactly he point. If you read above (to educate yourself) you would see it is actually Steve who is advocating against the bush cuts. I suspect Steve doesn't know that he is asking for an across the board tax increase.
Not all taxes are created equal. Raising the taxes on Citigroup's CEO won't cause the bank to make fewer loans or hire fewer tellers. Raising the marginal tax rate of a hedge fund manager so he pays a couple of percent more on the income he receives over a million dollars won't crash a pension funds' portfolio. Ditto for limiting deductions for depreciation and loan interest on multi-million dollar second homes and corporate jets. Is that austerity?
Some of those who consider deficits a serious problem recognize that "just like a family" one way to reduce deficits is to increase revenue. That way, Grandma can leave the cat food on the store shelf and every child in the country can afford to get vaccinated. Is that fairness?
Nor are all tax plans appropriate for all times. The Bush-era tax cuts wiped out the Clinton surplus (the one Gingrich takes credit for even though he and his fellow Republicans didn't vote for it). Most economists consider this a mistake in prosperous times. And in that respect I agree with Steve.
George. Sure- but raising taxes on the CEO of Citibank will not even register to he nth decimal point on making a difference. There is only one of him (or her). The bush era tax cuts cut taxes for everyone. If taxes are going to be the tool for deficit reduction, the net will necessarily go much further than the top 2%, 10% or even 40%. It has zero to do with fairness and everything to do with simple math. We have far to few rich people to approach it on an Obama style.
Raise taxes on CEOs, NFL and NBA players, attorneys and doctors to include 100% of their income over $500,000 and it wouldn't dent the deficit. Read someone like msnbc's own Chris Hayse. Even he says it has to be a broadly casted net for taxes to make an actual difference.
Steve point is to end the Bush tax cuts. You say you agree. Are you really agreeing to increase taxes, even a little, on the $30,000 a year family bread winner?
Bush was handed a surplus, and he rode into office proclaiming, "It's your money, and I'm gonna give it back to ya." This isn't surprising, because it had been unwavering Republican orthodoxy for the last few decades. Surplus: cut taxes. Deficit: cut taxes. Recession: cut taxes. Recovery: cut taxes. You run a surplus during good times to save for a rainy day. But this time, when the rainy day came, the piggy bank was empty.
"Drown it in a bathtub" sounds like Wild West anarchy to me. No wonder the NRA wants to pack AR-15's.
Obama never said "taxes are going to be the [only] tool for deficit reduction." He has always favored a balanced approach. But compromise has become a dirty word among the moral giants who fear an attack from their right.
In these tenuous times, now is not the time to cut spending or raise taxes. But that day will come, when we're firmly back on our feet.
Steve didn't say that he thinks we should raise taxes now. He said Bush tax cuts were a bad idea then. And that's why I agree.
Ok. I thought he was speaking in present terms. In reading you, it seems you support Clinton tax policies? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you've referenced it in a positive way. I will tell you right now that I would support them, but I don't think you could get more than a stray vote or two in the senate for that package.
Well, they certainly seemed to work at the time. Clinton ran on the famous slogan, "It's the economy, stupid," inspired by the sluggish economy resulting from the hangover of the 1987 crash and savings and loan collapse. (It seems we deregulate banks every twenty years and pay the price later. But I digress.)
The 1990's were pretty good years. Everyone who was invested in the stock market thought himself a genius. You might say this boom had more to do with William H. Gates III and Steve Jobs than William Jefferson Clinton. Even so, the fact that the Clinton tax policies didn't get in the way of this expansion validates the concept of running a surplus during good times.
If we didn't have the Bush tax cuts already, I could see cutting tax rates now from those equal to Clinton-era ones. For most people, their main concern now is jobs and paying for their basic necessities, not the bugaboo of deficits. We've grown our way out of large deficits before, and we can do it again. I think Obama has made the mistake of letting himself be cornered into caring about deficits. With interest rates this low, I don't. If government borrowing crowded out other borrowing, (late 70's and early 80's) then I'd care. People and institutions here and around the world are happy to finance our debt at historically low rates.
The 1990's were a time of great innovation, inventions nobody could predict. I'm confident there's another disruptive, unpredictable innovation coming, probably in the field of genetics. Our economy will take off again. And we'll reexamine our existing tax policy.
Nobody has yet figured out a way to abolish the economy's boom-bust cycles. Until they do, tax policy should change to accommodate them. Cutting taxes, the mantra of some for the last generation or two, is not always the answer. We don't need a return to the Clinton tax policies now. The millionaire tax won't solve all our problems, but it's a start.
'Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.' -- Oliver Wendell Homes. Nothing about drowning in a bathtub here.
Pretty much true across the board. It is always interesting hearing the left discuss the Clinton years. You seem to have a fairly accurate picture as opposed to others. It is always forgotten that Clinton raised taxes across the board, including a first ever tax on SS benefits. He also cut capital gains tax rates, and what brought in lots of revenue was creating a super low rate on corporate income earned overseas to bring it back in to the USA. Followed by first ever limits on welfare benefits. Almost everything in his plan would be against what Obama proposes and has done. This is what I find so interesting when I hear the left discuss his years. In many ways, it was a republican theory
The one disagreement with what you said, though, is the millionaires tax being a start. It may seem "fair" to anyone not paying it, but it will raise such an insignificant amount of revenue as a percent of our debt as to be incidental.
One additional thought as well. Mortgage rates are at an extreme low. I wouldn't want to go buy more house that I could heat, cool, pay propery taxes on, etc. just because someone financed it at very low rates. The youth have sacrificed a lot- jobs out of college, future national debt- but in reality, they were the deciding factor in he election so they've chosen to accept it.
To: Rev Al Sharpton...02.21.2013 tonight at same time while you were crying how awfull terrible the sequester automatic cuts are come March 1...on FBN they "proved" that the $85 billion is only 0.5%...of the 900Trillion debt obama has created. And 2. only about 1/2 of the $85 billion will actually be cut due to accounting by the CBO. It will NOT hurt the economy at all! Get your facts right.
Um, h.... Obama hasn't created $900 Trillion in debt. He's trying but we are a long from there.
If the "F" in the initials stands for what I think it does, I hope you're not following their business advice in regards to any of your investments...
You'd think sequester will kill as many people as guns and global warming to hear it bing discussed. Wonder if they would kill as many as drones?
McCain will be remembered only for his ugly moments, I don't remember him being "honorable" or having had "integrity". He is a full stooge now!
buy a shotgun! buy a shotgun!! buy a shotgun!!!
Rush doesn't know how to spell "shame." On the other hand, "sham" is no problem.
The link to Limbaugh also recalls his criticism of FLOTUS for her "first time I'm proud to be an American." Irony, anyone?
the solution is; on federal land in the u.s.a. a think tank, not me, says we have 140 trillion, yes trillion dollars, worth of oil and natural gas. how about we sell a small piece of that , pay off whoever we owe, and put a little aside for old folks. like me. all 24/7 news shows have to pretend the sky is falling. thats what keeps their ratings up. i am angry that we do research down to the smallest detail on some items; but when it comes to the rip off we are receiving from the oil companies; we get an oil spokesman to explain the problems. wow! hes going to tell us the truth! seeing as how they are big time sponsors i understand the untouchable status; but it makes me think about how many other companies are also getting a free ride. we should make all of the news shows change their name to the 50% news, 50% snooze. there is almost nothing in todays news for many of us retired people that is more important than the price of gas and the price of food. there are many retirees that left the workforce 10, 15, or 20 years ago that are really struggling to make ends meet. i know many who have taken part time jobs late in life just to be able to afford the basics. remember, what you start out with at retirement time is what you have 10,15, 20 years down stream. so as everthing begins to go up in price we continue to lose buying power. some one should do a show on that subject. i don't think the oil companies will mind!
Rachael, I think some research and a program based upon the reluctance to limit magazine size versus the long standing recognition that it is appropriate when hunting migratory and upland birds to require the shotgun plug which limits the number of shells in the gun. I guess recognizing it will conserve birds and be more sporting is easier with birds than people.
A Challenge For Vice President Biden.
Given the Vice President's comments, I'd like to make a point by point response. The Vice President said:
Yes, there are plenty of ways to defend yourself without an AR-15. You can try to use your fists. Or you can use a sling shot. Or you can throw a rock. However, I have a right to my own life. Therefore, I have a right to protect and defend my life. I should be the person who decides the means by which I keep myself safe, not someone who does not need to worry himself with such concerns.
During the LA Riots, shops and businesses were looted and burned to the ground. One notable exception to this were some Korean businesses. The reason why those businesses were not looted was because the owners of those businesses were on the roof of their buildings holding AR-15's, holding looters at bay.
If you don't believe an AR-15 has a self-defense capability, then why do police departments, at the federal, state, and local level buy them? If this is the case then why does the Department of Homeland Security describe a "5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm [like an AR-15] [is] suitable for personal defense"?
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=1be5e1d8f3fda9b850cc3ba58393bcd3&_cview=%201
And if you still have your doubts, then explain this:
http://www.inquisitr.com/477139/gun-control-15-year-old-defends-sister-from-burglars-with-ar-15-rifle/
Forgetting for a moment that repeating a claim doesn't prove causation, if we make the assumption that the mere presence of guns results in gun crimes, then why do different places have different crime rates, despite the presence of guns in both places? Why does Camden, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore and Detroit have a different experience with gun crimes than places like Beverly Hills, Virginia Beach, Seattle, Madison, and Boston? Isn't it strange that all these cities have guns, but the only cities that have a significant gun problem also has a problem with poverty, income inequality, and societal decay?
If that's true, then why are law abiding gun owners buying up guns faster than you can blink?
In Missouri, Democrats have proposed legislation that would force gun owners to turn over their property to the state within 90 days or be considered a felon.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM
Does this not violate the 4th amendment right to be free from searches and seizures? Does this not violate the 5th amendment right not to be deprived of property without due process of law? Does this not violate the Constitutional prohibition against ex-post facto laws and bills of attainder?
In the state of Washington, Democrats have proposed a law that would allow the police to come into your home whenever they feel like it, without a warrant, to check and see if you're storing your guns the way they see fit. Is this not a blatant violation of the 4th amendment?
http://www.examiner.com/article/washington-gun-control-proposal-said-to-violate-fourth-amendment-to-constitution
Lastly, we all know that gun ownership does not cause insanity and psychopathic behavior. You can say a lot of things about guns, but you would have to be a fool to think that owning a hunk of metal would change someone's brain chemistry to such a degree that they think nothing of gunning down elementary school children and movie goers. After all, there are 79 million gun owners in this country, but we don't have 79 million murderers.
When will we have a Presidential commission to determine if certain psychotropic drugs like selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI's) were being taken by the shooters at Columbine, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook? SSRI's have already been linked to suicidal behavior in teens and young adults, and can induce a dissociative effect, making the person taking the drug unable to feel any kind of emotion, including empathy. Serial killers have one thing in common: They're all clinical psychopaths. Psychopaths all share another characteristic: The part of their brain that produces feelings of empathy is effectively turned off or is non-functioning.
Mr. Vice President: Are SSRI's turning teens and young adults into psychopaths? And will you investigate the pharmaceutical industry when they donated 1.8 million dollars to Obama's re-election campaign?
Recent complaints that the quiz show "Are you smarter than a fifth grader" is too difficult has given rise to a concept for a new show.
The new program is tentatively named,"Are you dumber than a FOX news host?"
The host position is expected to go to Stephen Colbert.
The format is still being worked out but certain things are decided. 1)All questions will be in a simple true or false form 2)There will be special editions where republican candidates are quizzed 3)Prizes will consist of items like..An honorary degree from Regents or Liberty looniversity(sorry but I refuse to give them the title university even in jest!)
Help us with our quest to find true entertainment by sending suggestions to our writers ,save postage by flushing those ideas down the nearest toilet--this will also provide our writers with a square meal.
Heck, it would be even more fun to use the same concept, just expand it to all news media. Include msnbc, CNN, abc, etc.
And the winner is....
...anyone who loves comedic hypocrisy.
So Biden is advising us on what firearms Americans need... what qualifies him? Is he a firearms expert? A firearms instructor? In law enforcement?
As for his contention that law enforcement overwhelmingly support measures with regards to assault weapons, I invite you to google the Saratoga Sheriffs Assoc PBA response letter to the NYS SAFE Act... or the NYS Sheriffs Association's position on the SAFE Act... or the Illinios Sheriffs Association's position about potential legislation.
Wasn't Rush the one who criticized Michelle Obama for implying she felt she could finally be proud of America during the first Obama campaign? Guess he should play back his comments for his own consumption. I, for one, am ashamed of America because we are caught in the web of deceit the Republican Party expounds daily. We need to get rid of the party of Rush, quickly.