TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

NRA pitching bogus fear



Toolbox

Published: November 17, 2009

The NRA called me this morning, not something this non-shooter would expect. The caller, a fellow named Richard, an unemployed machinist from Ohio, began by asking me what I thought of the "outrageous attempt by the United Nations to get rid of guns in America." When probed further, he said Hilary Clinton was the instigator of this attempt. After several minutes of back and forth about why this was a fantasy and no one could possibly ban guns in the U.S., or try to if they value their political (and possibly their actual) life – the real motive, a fundraising attempt by the NRA became clear, and Richard admitted it. So here we have a desperate worker down on his luck shilling for the NRA. I told Richard what he should be doing is finding a job in green energy instead of bashing the Clintons who do not hold elective office. One would think that type of fear mongering for cash was a thing of the past. I guess the NRA is stuck in the 20th century.

Art Edelstein

East Calais







READER COMMENTS


In his letter, Mr. Edelstein ridicules the notion of gun-banning as "bogus" and "fantasy". In his comments following his letter, Mr. Edelstein acknowledges a "liberal bias" concerning firearms then, to those concerned with such banning, he writes that it would lead to revolution therefore they should relax because he naively believes "it ain't going to happen". His view defies history recording that gun-banning has already happened in the USA without "revolution" and ignores the fact that Constitutional rights can be won or lost incrementally.

In the first place, not all liberals believe in disarming themselves. It's uncertain that even most Vermont liberals advocate that.

Secondly, revolution is not an option. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, after votes have decided an issue among free people, those who try to change the outcome using armed force will fail and pay a price.

Finally, relaxation is not an option. We citizens will have the weight of the Constitution and use of the justice system to protect and affirm our rights, including the right of handgun ownership for effective self-defense, until we relax enough to allow others the subversion of both.

As citizens, only our vigilance, our election of competent legislators, our persistent communication with such legislators, and our use of our legal framework with strong determination will restore and protect our Constitutional rights.

LH Dickson
Duxbury
-- Posted by LH Dickson on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 9:39 am EST

report this comment


Mr. Edelstein's core premise is completely incorrect. Guns have been banned in the USA and such bans don't seem to have had much effect on the political or actual lives of those who endorsed them.

f Mr. Edelstein meant "all guns, every single gun including blunderbusses and rust-seized matchlock muskets, could never be banned forever and ever", he might have been correct. As far as guns for effective self-defense are concerned, history shows that he is indisputably mistaken and that only citizens' vigilance coupled with determination through legal means can restore Constitutional rights.
-- Posted by LH Dickson


Nice to see that someone is actually talking about my letter.
No, I am not an expert on gun laws. I do think there are way too many but of course that is just my liberal bias at work.
I do believe it is impossible to actually ban guns nationally as the gun owning public would revolt and we'd have 1776 all over again.

So, while many of us think the proliferation of weaponry in this country is not good, those of you on the other side can relax. It ain't going to happen.

Art Edelstein
-- Posted by Art Edelstein on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 5:24 pm EST

report this comment


Your welcome melissa! ;)

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 4:36 pm EST

report this comment


Well BS, thanks to the discussions we have, I am actually starting to see that point. I'm not a closed minded person. Truly, I do get something out of these discussions, if people can stay on topic, point out there views with reasoning and actually show facts. But I am serious, there was a hearing on 9 trillion missing back in the spring. Why I'm having a hard time finding it I don't know, but I'm really not surprised, we don't have all the facts, they are often labeled classified when they find it too controversial, this my friend, is extremely controversial.

Have a good weekend!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 3:02 pm EST

report this comment


Melissa, You are talking about 9 trillion dollars! Broken down that is 9,000 billion dollars or 90,000 million dollars that is missing. And you want Obama to take control of 20% of our national economy. With your 9 trillion and the national debt of 12 trillion and another proposed 2.5 trillion health care grab how can you trust anything the government says. We are on the Obama express ride to bankruptcy as well as losing our freedom to manage our own heath. Will you people ever wake up. The senate health reform fiasco is 2072 pages, the United States Constitution is 17 pages. Which one do you think is better for you?
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 1:22 pm EST

report this comment


Mr. Edelstein's core premise is completely incorrect. Guns have been banned in the USA and such bans don't seem to have had much effect on the political or actual lives of those who endorsed them.

Many municipalities in the country have infringed on the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns. Two examples are Washington, DC and Morton Grove, Illinois where both communities for years banned the right of effective handgun ownership by law-abiding citizens yet political life continued routinely, perhaps occasionally interrupted by egregious personal conduct in office.

In DC, the right was restored after a 2008 Supreme Court ruling. The right of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns, after an infringement of twenty-seven years duration, also was restored by Morton Grove because of the Supreme Court's DC ruling.

While working as a state senator with legislation involving municipal gun bans, Barack Obama never challenged the right of communities to enact such bans. His tacit approval of such gun-banning did not adversely affect his political career nor did the advocacy of such bans affect the political careers or lives of Chicago's Mayor Daly or the state's governor, Rob Blagojevich. Talking on the phone skewered the governor's career.

If Mr. Edelstein meant "all guns, every single gun including blunderbusses and rust-seized matchlock muskets, could never be banned forever and ever", he might have been correct. As far as guns for effective self-defense are concerned, history shows that he is indisputably mistaken and that only citizens' vigilance coupled with determination through legal means can restore Constitutional rights.
-- Posted by LH Dickson on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 6:34 am EST

report this comment


I'm entirely baffled, over and over the arguments on these articles have been the government doing what eve they want with our money, they have more control than they should, I try to show you all something that is a fact, it has happened, we've been robbed to the extreme, whether on purpose or by accident, a HUGE SUM of money is missing, no checks and balances, no clear paths where the money has gone, and I'm getting ****.. wow, just ******* wow!!!!!!

***shaking head*** baffled, completely and utterly baffled!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 10:35 pm EST

report this comment


If it's a matter of security ML? Why would congress question it, shouldn't they know?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 10:32 pm EST

report this comment


Nope, I'm not saying Bush did anything, I'm saying that the 9 Trillion is missing and was missing before Obama got in office. It's a fact, it's missing. Why no one is saying anything in the media is a good question. One I would like to know the answer too, but it was in front of the congressional committee, it's in the list of C-span videos. If I come across it some day I'll post it, I don't have the time to sit here and search through 8000 videos. You have the time, look it up.

As for the pentagon, I'm not suggesting a thing, Congress is.. wtf!!!!!!!

what I find most intriguing, is I'm pointing out our money being stolen and your arguing it with me.. so in that, you really do like to just argue don't you?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 10:21 pm EST

report this comment


So your saying that Dick, Bush (immature "hehe") and others walked out of the Federal reserve with 9 trillion dollars and nobody knows anything or cares?

I'll concede the 2 trillion from the pentagon but I do not believe that it was "stolen". I think it seems a tad more likely that the money missing from the pentagon because of "classified" expenditures rather than what you are suggesting. There are plenty of items that would need to be kept secret for national security reasons that need funding. Also, there are billions of dollars a year funneled out of the government in Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, SS, and so on. Why would you expect it to be any different with the Pentagon? Does it suck? Yes. Is Obama falling in step with previous trends? Undeniably.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 9:48 pm EST

report this comment


http://www.wanttoknow.info/banking_finance/elizabeth_coleman_fed_missing_trillions
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 7:10 pm EST

report this comment


http://www.examiner.com/x-6495-US-Intelligence-Examiner~y2009m5d22-Federal-Reserve-Inspector-General-hedges-on-trillions-missing-in-Congressional-hearing
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 7:10 pm EST

report this comment


Here's your buddy rumsfeld.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/rclark23/17B18311AE87446F82E957494CC8BAF1/rumsfeld-admits-2-3-trillion-.aspx
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 7:03 pm EST

report this comment


No I mean like these.. go to cspan, go to congress archives. I'm done playing with the news that everyone wants to say is false. here, start with this one bud. It's january of 2008 read what is happening with our money way before Barack Obama was elected President. We are in deep **** and it didn't start this year son!


http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8539152

When you're done jaw dropping on this, look around for the rest. I'm done. it's true, it's happening we are screwed!

Cheers have a good night!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 6:47 pm EST

report this comment


Gee, fixed news got busted for doctoring video again yesterday. Imagine that. This is getting to be a weekly occurrence with our fairly unbalanced friends. Oh, well, when the facts aren't doing them any favors, they distort, they deride.
-- Posted by max ambrosini on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 4:28 pm EST

report this comment


http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/federal-reserve-can-not-account-for-9.html
http://vodpod.com/watch/1612055-federal-reserve-steals-9-trillion-dollars
http://mrssatan.blogspot.com/2009/05/9-trillion-dollars-still-missing.html

See if that worked.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 4:17 pm EST

report this comment


You mean like these?

zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/federal-reserve-can-not-account-for-9.html
www.prisonplanet.com/fed-hides-destination-of-2-trillion-in-bailout-money.html
vodpod.com/watch/1612055-federal-reserve-steals-9-trillion-dollars
mrssatan.blogspot.com/2009/05/9-trillion-dollars-still-missing.html

I even searched for "9 trillion missing fed msnbc", nothing comes up. Stop lie-mongering, you "liether"(as in truther and birther)

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 4:14 pm EST

report this comment


As far as linking to you to anything ML, Not going to happen, you don't like any links given even if I posted fox news. look it up, do your research.

9 Trillion MIssing from Federal Reserve
2 Trillion MIssing from Pentagon Announced by Rumsfeld 9.10.2001

that ought to help you get started.. cheers.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 2:09 pm EST

report this comment


I will put the blame on Obama, when he's been in office more than 10 months. When 9.11 happened, Bush was in office for 9 months, I did not blame him, I still do not blame him for that. The blame goes on the people that attacked us, I will how ever vocalize my discord in how he handled dealing with it, and how he handled dealing with finances during his terms. My only problem with all of you blaming Obama, is you seem blind to the fact that the past administration hurt us more than helped us.

I am not ready to hang Obama because I just feel like it, like the rest of you, there hasn't been enough time for anything to be proven to be a failure or a success.. Just tired of it, I'm only defending the fact that it's going to take time and pointing out what happened in the past 8 years that got us here from that perspective.. it's that simple.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 2:06 pm EST

report this comment


"Newsmax is a better source than factcheck. Are you kidding me? So any media without a liberal bias is unreliable? What a joke. Factcheck, moveon and the likes would be like using wikipedia on a thesis paper."

Nice try. Feel free to prove that factcheck.org has a liberal bias. You've never failed to fail before and I know you won't let me down this time, either, ML.

As for CNS, the only thing they're an alternative to is reality.

Unlike you teabagger trash and cluster fox fans, I'm a member of the fact-based community. Newsmax, worldnutdaily and CNS along with cluster fox are illegitimate trash by illegitimate trash for illegitimate trash. Make a note of it.
-- Posted by max ambrosini on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 1:56 pm EST

report this comment


Yes BSA but, "bush bush bush".

LOL
ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 1:53 pm EST

report this comment


Give me a link.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 1:52 pm EST

report this comment


CFC cost the taxpayers $24,000.00 per car sold over and above the cost of the car. The top selling cars were Honda, Kia and Hyundae (sp). Not American companies. It took thousands of reliable used cars out of the market by ruining the motors and raised the cost of other used cars making it more difficult for lower income people to afford a car. Those people who took the CFC deal are going to be taxed on $4,500.00 as income and cars sales have slumped back down to pre-CFC numbers. What a great program!

Melissa, you are so incorrect on your assumption of the economic failures that it is mind boggling to watch you try to defend the bankrupting of this country in give- aways to a few people and huge bailouts to Wall Street, Unions and paybacks to people and organizations who helped get Obama elected. His policies are a dismal failure. And you and your children are going to pay for this and the next disaster, Obamacare.
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 1:41 pm EST

report this comment


There is reliable information ML. There was a congressional committee hearing back in March on the 9 trillion missing from the federal reserve, they recieved a whole lot of hmmss and huhs, but no concrete answers as to where it is, coming down to... Just POOF gone!!! Seriously, there is 9 trillion missing, and as for the 2 trillion missing from the Pentagon, Rumsfeld himself announced it, how is that conspiracy and not true to you?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 1:16 pm EST

report this comment


cfc DID NOT WORK! All it did was bailout the companies again. They hired worked who get paid way too much for the company to survive in the future, and they are fire them now that the program is over. It cost the tax payer $24,000 per car sold, sounds like a great deal.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/10/620000657/1

All it did was push people who were going to buy a car in the future to buy early, killing most future sales. It also increased debt for many people and you have to pay taxes on the rebate. This is after billions went to GM and others. Change we can believe in?

As far as the "trillions missing", its simply a conspiracy. There is no reliable information on this, you might as well be a "birther" or "truther" on this one.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 1:04 pm EST

report this comment


So nothing that happend in the past 20-30 years has anything to do with the current situation? It was simply Bush's fault? Thats just ignorant.

~Of course it had something to do with it; however, Bush's blind spending, fear mongering, and lying got us into a deeper mess then necessary. Of course we use him only as he was the figure head, but it was the governing base, his administration.
Under Bush: 2 trillion dollars disappeared from the Pentagon, we still don't know where that is..
Under Bush: 9 trillion dollars disappeared from the Federal Reserve, we still don't have any answers where that went either. That's 11 trillion dollars "poof" gone, with not checks and balances.

Melissa, like I said, he saved us for now, but we are more ******d in the future than we were. You can't save us from financial collapse by barrowing money from us. That does not make one bit of sense. What is does do however is allow for oodles of pet projects to be swept through in the name of stimulation. Where are the jobs? Where was the money spent? Why do you not care?

~Private Companies do this everyday to keep going and things work out, why is it different with the government. Either way, it's someone else's money.
It's going to take time for the jobs to come about, further more, we should be looking at the states for that, they retrieved the money, how are they spending it? I care very much.

~Think about it, TARP, Obama stim, Cash for clunker, healthcare, cap-n-tax, demonization of corporate America are all playing into this, and Obama is not helping one bit. They can't even varify where all the money has gone, and so far two "phantom districts" have been discovered. Millions gone to districts in Az and TX that do no exist.
Government solution in work....


Cash for clunkers did work, the sales went through the roof. Car builders rehired people that laid off, how can you say it didn't work? Health care hasn't gone anywhere, so there's no way anyone can analyze that at this time. There hasn't been a cap n tax past yet either. As for money being verified, I think we need to start finding out where 11 trillion that is unaccounted for in the past 8 years before Obama See above. As for the stimulus packages, again, that's up to the states to spend it right, they had guidelines on what to spend it on, that is where to start, how are they spending, are they spending it right?

Texas... think about that one, and then think about the 11 trillion missing and who that was missing under!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 12:33 pm EST

report this comment


Newsmax is a better source than factcheck. Are you kidding me? So any media without a liberal bias is unreliable? What a joke. Factcheck, moveon and the likes would be like using wikipedia on a thesis paper.

Anyway, here are a few more.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mansoor_Ijaz
"Ijaz argued the U.S. should adopt a policy of "constructive engagement" [18] with Sudan and, in return for providing intelligence data on the terrorist groups and deporting Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, ease the sanctions. Saudi Arabia refused to accept bin Laden. The U.S. government believed there were no legal grounds under which he could be indicted in U.S. courts at the time. On May 18 1996, under pressure from the U.S. government, the government of Sudan deported bin Laden. He then made his way to Afghanistan"

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=mansoor_ijaz
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/142108.shtml
(the above is Newsmax but it is an article from CNS)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a2d_1188913575
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34942

Oh and maxi boy, factcheck uses newsmax as a source in the page you got your info from, so not sure what you are talking about. Halfway down the 7th paragraph.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html

I wouldn't expect you lefties to know any of this as you only go to CNN, CBS, and NY times, all in bed with the left.
Shameful.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 12:17 pm EST

report this comment


Newsmax is not a legitimate source. It's wingnut nonsense.

Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?
A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.

FactCheck.org

Lose the cluster fox facts and get yourself a legitimate source of information.
-- Posted by max ambrosini on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 11:47 am EST

report this comment


First of all, you voted for change, you just said Obama is doing what Bush 1 and 2 did, so are you really a republican? Obama is on course to spend x4 what Bush did in 8 year, only Obama will do it in 4. What about the change you voted for?

Solution: You get rid of tax on wealth and labor. You stop creating more entitlement programs, and you STOP SPENDING MORE THAN WE HAVE! You stop crapping on the hard workers and the successful and start looking up to them. It is called the Fairtax, and I think it is the best solution. A tax on consumption, but it is not just that. It would create a Boom in jobs, government revenue, and free up billions currently known has the "cost of compliance". Now rad into the Fairtax before you brand it "regressive", look at how it came about, and why it would work. We need to not be like Obama and Bush, I agree. We need real change, Vote Libertarian.

(I would throw in the "tax drugs" argument too, but I won't go there right now)

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 11:39 am EST

report this comment


7,000 was not right. Bad source, sorry I will take strides to insure it does not happen again.

The real numbers are as follows:
529 dead, 18,039 injured from only 97-00. Not including Somolia.

And Sudan had Osama, Clinton refused to take him. Don't listen to me, listen to the one who negotiated with Sudan for clinton and another top aid. They blame Clinton for Osama's rise in power. Interesting...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 11:28 am EST

report this comment


ML,

You say, "You can't save us from financial collapse by barrowing money from us. That does not make one bit of sense." But this kind of deficit spending has been the cornerstone of Republican financial policy in the modern age. Democrats have run up MUCH LESS of the NATIONAL DEBT than Republicans. Deficit spending was the basis of budgets signed by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Only Clinton did anything in the past 30 years to try to balance the budget and get deficit spending under control.

Now we have Barack Obama trying to keep the National economy from plunging into a depression the likes of which those Americans alive now can only read about and imagine the ugliness of. (I won't get into who is responsible for this mess- I think you know.) If avoiding a major depression (doing which saves our economy much more than we're spending) isn't a reasonable reason for some deficit spending now, WHAT IS? I would love a well thought out, non-attack based answer to this question that doesn't try to skirt the point.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 11:25 am EST

report this comment


So nothing that happend in the past 20-30 years has anything to do with the current situation? It was simply Bush's fault? Thats just ignorant.

Melissa, like I said, he saved us for now, but we are more ******d in the future than we were. You can't save us from financial collapse by barrowing money from us. That does not make one bit of sense. What is does do however is allow for oodles of pet projects to be swept through in the name of stimulation. Where are the jobs? Where was the money spent? Why do you not care?

In the long run we are just going to have to tax the people who create jobs. Admit it, poor people do not create companies, they don't invest, they don't save money and the same holds true for the government. If they wanted to creat jobs by spending, why not have a tax cut equal to the amount spent? If spending is the solution, why does it matter who spend? Why does the government say, "you folks just wouldn't spend the money right"? How is it their job to say so? Why do you not care?

You can't expect job creation or economic growth when there is so much uncertainty with Obama. As in, who is going to pay for all this, who is going to pay for Obamacare, how is Cap-n-Tax going to unfold, how are they going to cut the deficit? These are all area that have business's very worried and in an on going hiring freeze.

Think about it, TARP, Obama stim, Cash for clunker, healthcare, cap-n-tax, demonization of corporate America are all playing into this, and Obama is not helping one bit. They can't even varify where all the money has gone, and so far two "phantom districts" have been discovered. Millions gone to districts in Az and TX that do no exist.
Government solution in work....

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 10:16 am EST

report this comment


"where more than 7,000 people died?"

Jeff, where did 7,000 people die. Not in the bombings you mentioned. I do not know where you get your history from, but it is more fantasy and right-wing ranting than in history, kind of like Palin's "Going Rogue." And who was it that handed Dubya warnings about Bin Laden who Clinton was onto and trying to get at when Bush took over? Who was it that ignored those warnings, allowing 9/11 to happen? Who was in the white house when the economy suddenly collapsed? It was not Obama.
-- Posted by Watercloset on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 11:26 pm EST

report this comment


As for Lieberman. Labeling this as an act of terrorism is wrong, there was no political coercion, there was no political intimidation, this was a dude that lost his marbles and went ballistic, Perhaps the definition of terrorist should be changed to muslims, because that is the only reason I can see why this is being labeled as a case of terrorism.

There was no note of him professing anything, no video, no threats to the president or the country. Yes he attacked our armed forces, his colleagues. If he was a guy that worked in a law firm, would this be called an act of terrorism too?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 10:56 pm EST

report this comment


Okay first off ML. Hoekstra. really Hoekstra? Do you know this guy has leaked pertinent secret information on this very case? Did you know that hoekstra also had a site up that showed people HOW to make WMD's, when he was questioned about it he took it down? Don't believe me look it up.

Also, National Security Council are the people that were set up to look into national security, which I've seen even you say this is an issue of such, this is saying they are in charge of the probe at this time, and congress should wait, why shouldn't they? If we have a group that already does this, why should congress conduct the probe?

As far as the rest of your post, if he did nothing, then where would we be, we were headed for a great depression all over again?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 10:46 pm EST

report this comment


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzhjODk1ODg4M2NiODU4Yzc3YWE1OTA1MDNmYWQ5M2Y=
On clintons track record

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_delay_Fort_Hood_/2009/11/18/287738.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/18/obama-gets-delay-of-fort-hood-probe/
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/68395-lieberman-may-subpoena-government-officials-over-fort-hood-shooting
A few off hand on Ft Hood and Obama.

Dick Morris use to conduct polls for Clinton every time something notable happened to see what the public thought. I feel like there is a lot of that going on with this administration. He never makes a decision on principle, but rather on "what will my donors think".

As far as "Its not Obama's Fault", I never said it was as I also do not put the blame with Bush. All I say is he has not helped the situation at all in the long run. Sure he "created or saved" jobs, and "brought the economy back from the brink". But at what cost? How does borrowing money from the people you are "saving" make any sense? Think about that, we are going broke from debt and poor planning and the only solution they come up with is barrow and spend our way out of this. I am sorry but the definition of psychotic is "complete detachment from reality" and psychotic behavior is often associated with performing the same action multiple times and expecting a different result each time. Is that not what Obama and Bush have done? We all need to wake up on this one. We all seem to take the stance of, "our guys in now, time for payback" and we just go round and round.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 10:29 pm EST

report this comment


ML: You have similar reasoning powers to AYK. No wonder you defend her.

"none none, Obama is blocking a probe of the Ft Hood Shooter, why could that be I wonder? Bush was in office for 7 months when 9/11 happend. They were planning it for 5 years plus."
Obama was not even in office when the financial meltdown happened or either of the wars started. These were events that were in the making for many years. However, you have no problem blaming Obama for all of it. Thats right, you don't remember that (probably because you were still in elementary school).
And by the way, please explain why Obama is blocking a probe of Ft. Hood? I really don't know. Not everyone reads your right-wing conspiracy theory blogs for their "news".
You are correct that you don't understand history at all. Pretty sure 7000 people didn't die in the attacks you mention. But don't let facts get in the way.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 8:32 pm EST

report this comment


By the way benny, we were talking about NRA, now we are on this Anti-Bush hate mongering. And it is the "right" who is accused of always changing the topic at hand.... psh. Posted By Jeff the Imposter Perkins


Ummm ML, it was the right that changed the subject, scroll down it was on topic until BS Avenger blamed Obama... Then and only then, did it shift..
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 5:53 pm EST

report this comment


BS, Your full of just that. I have nothing to say to such an arrogant jerk as yourself. Get over yourself.

By the way benny, we were talking about NRA, now we are on this Anti-Bush hate mongering. And it is the "right" who is accused of always changing the topic at hand.... psh.

none none, Obama is blocking a probe of the Ft Hood Shooter, why could that be I wonder? Bush was in office for 7 months when 9/11 happend. They were planning it for 5 years plus. Now, my memory is not what it used to be, do you remember who was president then? Do you remember doing anything after the embassy bombings in Africa, the al-Kobar bombing in Saudi Arabia the uss cole attack, the first WTC bombing, or any of the other predecessors to 9/11 where more than 7,000 people died? Do you remember which president it was that the Saudis handed Osama to on a silver platter and he was not taken into custody? I just can't remember but I know it wasn't Bush.... HHMMMMM anyone know who it was????? I have liberal disorder and I do not know history at all......

I am going to start a rehabilitation center for people with addictions to Bush-mongering, or G.W. derangement syndrome if you will. Benny and Wally I'll let you in free, I know how expensive health care is and I wouldn't want you to go bankrupt from it, but I do want you two to get better soon. ;)

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 5:23 pm EST

report this comment


"Same old losers blamming the last administraion for the current failure of Obama the community organizer in chief. Same old loser mentality. Poor me....my life sucks...blame Bush!!!"

Proud Republican,

Did you read thoroughly enough to understand the CONTEXT of the discussion of Bush policies? That people aren't "blamming the last administraion (sic)" and that in fact most people writing wouldn't even know to what you are referring when you speak of failure.

I think people see things as enormously improved since Obama took office. There's been a reasonable degree of progress in both accountability and competence and there's a lot less corruption.

By the way, you may want to rethink your moniker. Its indicative of both a lack of basic conceptual depth and/or a lack of honesty on your part. If you were actually a "proud" Republican, you wouldn't be afraid to use your real name. So you're not honest (or particularly proud for that matter.) If you were capable of understanding the paradoxical implications of using a pseudonym such as yours, you never would have used it in the first place- thus demonstrating your lack of conceptual depth (and why you may not have understood the context of what was being discussed here in the first place.)

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 3:27 pm EST

report this comment


Same old lunatic-fringe, teabagger trash pretending that bush wasn't President on 9/11/01, didn't lie us into Iraq or ***** up Afghanistan for seven years to the point of its current FUBAR condition and leave Obama with the worst economic meltdown since a previous generation of incompetent gops gave us the SM Crash of '29 and the resultant Great Depression while bankrolling the fuhrer.

Once again, history and the facts just ain't doin' you gops any favors. Bummer.
-- Posted by max ambrosini on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 3:11 pm EST

report this comment


If ignorant, anti-American, teabaggers were capable of rational thought and asking intelligent, relevant questions, they wouldn't be ignorant, anti-American teabaggers.
-- Posted by max ambrosini on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 3:05 pm EST

report this comment


"So Bush hand picked these people and ordered them to be tourtured? Take your meds pal."

ML,

What does your question have to do with the price of beans? If you can't ask relevant questions or at least make clear how the questions you're asking are relevant to what's being discussed, please refrain from asking them. Thanks.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 2:58 pm EST

report this comment


Same old losers blamming the last administraion for the current failure of Obama the community organizer in chief. Same old loser mentality. Poor me....my life sucks...blame Bush!!!
-- Posted by Proud Republican7 on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 2:51 pm EST

report this comment


"Well since 9/11 we werent attacked."

In other words, we haven't been attacked since bush was squatting in the White House. Gee, thanks for clearin' that up, ayk.

"Hows that change working out for ya libs?"

Much better. Competence and legitimacy are a big improvement. Thanks for asking, ayk.
-- Posted by max ambrosini on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 2:44 pm EST

report this comment


AYK: Really, are you kidding? Bush, no attacks? Your simple mind doesn't include 9/11 (which occurred under Bush if you don't remember)? Thousands dead? Remember that? Kind of a big deal.
No offense to the victims of Fort Hood and their families as it was certainly a tragedy, but it doesn't compare to 9/11.
Get a grip, AYK. Think before you post.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 2:35 pm EST

report this comment


What does Obama have to do with Fort Hood? That guy was in the Army way before the current administration-- six years at Walter Reed where coworkers reported him for his views and he received counseling. I don't see the connection there just like I don't believe in the connection between Bush and 9/11. In both cases, from what I've read, the bureaucracy that's been in place since John Adams killed any sense of urgency, any sense imagination that could've prevented either from happening.

That's not any President's fault-- no matter who has that top job, the bureaucracy does not change nor do the attitudes embedded. CYA was created by a bureaucrat.
-- Posted by Vermontrider None on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 1:48 pm EST

report this comment


Well since 9/11 we werent attacked.

Obama admins relaxed feel sorry for terrorist policy has gotten him a massacre at Ft Hood.

So lets see, under Bush, no attacks
Under Obama, 13 murdered by a homegrown terorist onour own soil in our own military base.

Hows that change working out for ya libs?
-- Posted by Are You Kidding? on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 1:28 pm EST

report this comment


Pushing bogus fears in the NRA's business. Their only business.
-- Posted by max ambrosini on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 12:59 pm EST

report this comment


Huh? I believe the (accurate) comparison was between administrations and their policies.
-- Posted by Captain Obvious on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 12:31 pm EST

report this comment


Benny.

So Bush hand picked these people and ordered them to be tourtured? Take your meds pal.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 12:20 pm EST

report this comment


Hi Bennett

I am aware of the extraordinary rendition policies of the Bush Administration, and disagree with them as well as torture, I agree that the program probably created more harm than good, but what could've been done? It's been shown over and over that Presidents who feel that they can interpret the law to their advantage do so and short of impeachment, what can people do other than not vote for them? ,The whole issue raises questions about those who actually were fighting against the US and this is a very complicated area of law/diplomacy.

War, by definition, is between states, or nations. Legally, a country can't "declare" war against anything other than another legitimate country. This kicks in certain rules of war that attempt to protect civilians, property and wounded/POWs. A terrorist organization is not a country and to grant combatants of a terrorist organization the same "rights" as a POW is de facto giving the terrorist organization the same recognition as a legitimate government. Some third world hole could then "recognize" Al Qaeda as a government in exile and then things would really get interesting in New York...

However, treating them like "ordinary" criminals is also problematic. First off, US law has no legitimacy in Afghanistan Iraq or any other country so then what? Our own laws prevent soldiers from enforcing even our laws, or what's called "posse commitatus." When the Navy does drug enforcement, they have to have USCG members on board to actually do the arrest because they have that power. Do we then turn over any captured terrorists to the "local" government? How successful would that be? How many combatants would walk free from those courts? Any two bit lawyer could argue in a US court that the arrest was illegal, so then what?

I strongly disagree with Bush/Cheney's interpretations of how laws fit into this, but the problem isn't new either. Britain struggled with this in Ireland, France in Algeria and Belgium in the Congo. I'm not smart enough to figure this out, but somehow there has to be some kind of international concept of how to treat combatants acting like soldiers, engaging in combat without governmental support.
-- Posted by Vermontrider None on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 10:52 am EST

report this comment


"Consider the "Obama Extremism" and "Bush Extremism" from both left and right. Did any of the horrible things occur that actually affected our daily lives? Sure, there were things under Bush we were concerned about, a lot-- but in the end I didn't see black helicopters, was hauled in as a terrorist, or saw any other changes in daily life."

VTRider None,

The difference here is that the Bush administration WAS actually kidnapping innocent people, keeping them in secret prisons, and torturing them. Just because you aren't one of the people that this happened to, DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN"T HAPPENING. The CIA captured about 3000 people and secreted them off around the world. The vast majority of whom were LATER deemed INNOCENT. What about the BASIC AMERICAN PRECEPT of innocent until proven guilty?

The fuss about Obama's "extremism" on the other hand, is absolute nonsense. If anything, Obama is just barely as right-wing as Bush. He's a little more moderate maybe, but all of the nonsense about "socialism" or "forfeiting our right to guns" is just that- nonsense fear mongering from the right because he IS a more moderate, more honest, and more principled guy than they'd like. His administration won't let them steal as indiscriminately from the public coffers and in the private sector with non-regulated "financial instruments" as the the Bush/Cheney White House did, and they don't like it. This non-stop right-wing blitzkrieg on Obama is about money- not freedom. Some of the people here blogging are just a little too dense to get that.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 8:25 am EST

report this comment


Getting back to Mr. Edelstein's letter, the main point seems to be fear mongering is big business, and creates cash and a lack of credible information. Scared the heck out of me last night about the new study about mammograms and how they may not be as important for women between the ages of 40-50. The key point was "talk to your doctor"-- smart, right? They're always people who should get them regularly.

However, an OB/GYN was interviewed and she said that they've never had so many cancellations for mammograms in one day! All on the strength of a news report. Does anyone really think these people actually spoke to the doctor or did they just hear to "cancel" and went ahead and did so? Very scary, but not surprising that people would give into this without thinking, without considering, without asking.

Consider the "Obama Extremism" and "Bush Extremism" from both left and right. Did any of the horrible things occur that actually affected our daily lives? Sure, there were things under Bush we were concerned about, a lot-- but in the end I didn't see black helicopters, was hauled in as a terrorist, or saw any other changes in daily life. Call me cynical, but I really don't think Bush, Obama, or any othe president stretching back to Lincoln really gave two hoots about what the public really thought. After all, they've been elected, right?

It's a sad state of affairs that both sides of the political spectrum have to try and scare people when the other is in power. The left did it when Bush was in office and now the right is doing it for Obama. Call me old fashioned, but somewhere's in the middle is the truth, and it's not as sensational as either side would like it. The law and reality are pretty boring.
-- Posted by Vermontrider None on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 6:17 am EST

report this comment


"All of our enemies used to be foreign nations but now people within our own government are undermining the meaning and protections of our constitution. Some of you may call this crazy but all you have to do to understand Obama Extremism is to look back in history if you can find a history book that has not been revised in favor of the progressive movement and political correctness."

"I just now realized that perhaps the Obama administration should take credit for all the new jobs created at the NRA, as a result of his and congress' attempts to socialize and ruin this great country."

BSA and the Claw,

Thank God your fear-mongering is funnier than it is scary. Can I play? How about this one: Obama is in secret negotiations with Aliens from Uranus who have agreed to take all of the white people on Earth as slave labor if Obama will agree to (with his control over time, space, and the U.S. Constitution) get rid of all of our guns first. The Aliens aren't sure if Jews count as white people or not (sic.)

While I support the 2nd Amendment whole-heartedly, your (and the NRO's) hysteria here is nothing but comical. There's absolutely NOTHING that would ever convince Americans to give up their guns and anyone who tried to trade away our gun rights would be committing political suicide. Obama's too smart for that.


CJ-

The NRA calls me semi-regularly asking for money.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 9:43 pm EST

report this comment


You crack me up BSA, when we were all saying the same things about Bush, you ranted and raved we were all unpatriotic.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 5:22 pm EST

report this comment


The fact alone that Obama would sign this treaty should in itself scare anyone. The so called climate change treaty exempts China. So Americans will be forced to follow international rules while huge polluting nations go unchecked. You can look the other way and say oh, that's not possible. I think anything is possible with an administration bent on destroying the freedom of individuals here and through any world body like the UN. The corruption at the UN is so wide spread that anything it promotes is questionable at best. Just the same as anything the Obama administration says!
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 4:22 pm EST

report this comment


Hmm-- I see what the text is but I think the key here is the "illicit trade in small arms".

No matter what that text is, under our laws the right to own legal weapons is a right-- and not subject to negotiation by anyone. Besides, it would require a change in our Constitution and that's something that no one would condone for any reason, not Obama, not Bush, not even any of the other potential candidates. The UN can make as much noise as they can-- but good luck actually enforcing this. Half the countries mentioned wanting the ban make a lot of cash shipping weapons, so perhaps it's a way for them to eliminate competition? Viet-Nam got busted about 10 years ago trying to ship an A-37 Dragonfly through the Peace Bridge in Buffalo to South America. Isn't that an illegal weapon?

Any treaty signed by a President has to be approved by the Senate anyways, so that's dead in the water right there. No politician is that stupid, and besides, no cop would actually carry out that "order". It's illegal under our laws, and the last time I checked, there is no UN police.

I think, and this is probably a guess, it's to stop whack jobs like North Korea's fearless leader from shipping crates of weapons to any goofball who claims "revolution!" and wants support. The Sov's did it all throughout the 50's-80's and look what's that got the world.

The UN lost it's relevancy and credibility years ago-- it's just a place where people like Chavez can get some face time on international media and "diplomats" can shop and park illegally.
-- Posted by Vermontrider None on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 2:26 pm EST

report this comment


Check this one out! http://logisticsmonster.com/2009/11/15/obama-copenhagen-and-the-climate-change-treaty/
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 2:10 pm EST

report this comment


Here's a link that explains it. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lott071103.asp. Here's another: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0201e.asp. Just type in UN Gun Ban and you will get plenty.
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 1:57 pm EST

report this comment


BS Avenger-

I'm curious about what you're saying about Copenhagen. What's the actual wording of that? Do you have a link to the actual text?

Quick comment about textbooks. every textbook in the US is approved by the Texas School Administration. They, and California are the biggest purchasers in the world for books and they dictate what is or isn't in a book. No one else has a say because money talks, and no company wants to give up their business. Both of those states are responsible for our textbooks and what's inside of them.

I'll turn in my weapons when they disarm all of the private AKMs, RPG's and other weapons held by individuals in the third world. Good luck with that UN.
-- Posted by Vermontrider None on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 1:14 pm EST

report this comment


The truth is that the UN is trying to get the US to sign a treaty banning small arms. John Bolton, our previous ambassador to the UN, refused to commit the US to such a treaty, as it would infringe on an American's 2nd Amendment protections.

I guess Art Edelstein ought to do his research before trying to discredit some poor, lowly-paid person trying to earn a living working as a telephone solicitor. Obama's stimulus plan was supposed to limit our unemployment rate to less than 8%. It is now nearly 10.5 %. This poor person phoning him could have been some poor laid-off General Motors employee trying to support his wife and three children at the only job he was able to find.

Does the author of this letter realize that the person telephoning him about the benefits of joining the NRA was in one of those "new or saved jobs" created by the Obama stimulus plan? Why else would so many people join the NRA, given that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, and other democrats are forcing us to join an unconstitutional health care plan, which has nothing to do with healthcare, but rather control of private enterprise and redistribution of wealth (sic, reparations).


I just now realized that perhaps the Obama administration should take credit for all the new jobs created at the NRA, as a result of his and congress' attempts to socialize and ruin this great country.

I also realize that the Obama administration should be thanked for the quick removal of over 95% of the OBAMA bumper stickers on the road with their "Cash for Clunkers" program. I must admit that at least it had some positive effect on America.
It would behoove all Americans to join the NRA to protect our freedoms as we know them.
-- Posted by The Claw on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 12:59 pm EST

report this comment


The up-coming meeting in Copenhagen calls on all governments to outlaw personal ownership of firearms. The Obama administration has reversed itself and stands ready to sign this agreement. You can call it fear mongering if you want but the reality is that there are people pushing for a one world government. Under such an agreement our constitution would not be the supreme law of the land and our sovereignty as a nation would cease to exist. We would be subjects of an international tribunal under the international rules dealing with commerce, energy, climate change, individual rights and more. All of our enemies used to be foreign nations but now people within our own government are undermining the meaning and protections of our constitution. Some of you may call this crazy but all you have to do to understand Obama Extremism is to look back in history if you can find a history book that has not been revised in favor of the progressive movement and political correctness.
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 12:22 pm EST

report this comment


I find it amusing that people like Art Edelstein find any statement made by someone they disagree with as fear mongering but any thing that is said and includes the words green or environmentally, is the absolute truth.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 9:55 am EST

report this comment


I would check out the call back number on that one...sounds like a scam...even the NRA wouldn't risk credibility by doing phone solicitations..
-- Posted by CJ maloney on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 6:25 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout