I believe I just got a "push-pull" | 55 comments (55 topical, 0 hidden)
Ken's new battlecry, "I am WeakSaucio!! 1 (none / 0)

"Barack Obama has no problem with confiscating every privately owned gun in America." - KenTX

Since you weren't specific, I guess the passages you thought I'd find relative are:

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms."

"I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families."

"Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. A: I don't think that we can get that done."

"We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books."

Here's a better link for info. Scroll to the bottom and work your way up to see a timeline of how certain positions have evolved as he contemplates the issues.

I know, I know - you prefer people who think the exact same things in their 30's as they do their 40's and beyond, but I haven't found that to be so around people who can think.

by MedfordTim on 05/10/2008 09:05:19 PM EST

look for these to be campaign issues in 2008 (none / 0)
  • McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a "`read my lips' candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?" referring to George H.W. Bush's 1988 pledge. "No new taxes," McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, "I'm not making a `read my lips' statement, in that I will not raise taxes."

  • McCain claims to have considered and not considered joining John Kerry's Democratic ticket in 2004.

  • In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won't commit to supporting a regulation bill he's co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris' former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

  • McCain's first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn't be "rewarded" for acting "irresponsibly." His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

  • McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.

  • McCain's campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign's policy.

  • In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

  • In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the "nature of the society in Iraq" and the "religious aspects" of the country make it inevitable that the United States "eventually withdraws." Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he's prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years.

  • McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty's behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

  • McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants' kids who graduate from high school. Now he's against it.


by Chinese Democracy on 05/10/2008 09:49:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
McCain's Secret Weapon (none / 0)
McCain shares a common position with every voter in America on every issue.  No matter what your position is, left or right, mainstream or extreme, McCain agrees with you.  Its brilliant.  No one can say their position differs from McCain's about anything because he has taken every side of every issue.  Beat that Obama!

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 01:52:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
as an originalist (none / 0)
I believe that the writers of the constitution were referring to muskets when they wrote the phrase "right to keep and bear arms". Therefore the second amendment clearly prohibits any infringement on the right to keep and wield muskets. God Bless America.

by hazmat on 05/10/2008 10:05:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Shooting from grave to grave (none / 0)


By the way, a Kentucky Rifle was both deadly and accurate.

Who cares?  Over the years, Kentucky Fried Chicken has killed more people than Kentucky rifles have.  Don't pretend that sensible gun control puts America in danger of losing a valuable portion of its heritage.  The country is growing up, and gun control opponents have Peter Pan syndrome.

by OneHitKill on 05/11/2008 12:00:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why wait till November (none / 0)
McCain wants to stay in Iraq 100 years            

As of 4/30/08.. 68% oppose the U.S war in Iraq

The people have already decided.

 On the subject of gay marriage. It cannot be used as a wedge issue again as no one -- not the public at large, and not even the GOP's religious base -- seems to think that it's among the most pressing issues facing the country today.

Conservatives should realize they are dead in the water and shut the fuck up.


by Chinese Democracy on 05/11/2008 12:36:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
agree (none / 0)

Democrats believe we should have a war on Al Qaida. Its too bad we've effectively disengaged. Now we're being told that the real danger is Iran, which is an enemy of Al Qaida. Let's walk through the logic here:

No wait they're (Iran) helping the government we support in Iraq, right? No wait, I get it: actually we're fighting a war on a faction in Iraq that is against the government we support in Bagdad, which has no connection to Al Qaida. Wait but Iran supports them too. No, here it is Iran supports them exclusively!!! Hold on I think I can get all the lies straight and internally consistent...

The war on terror, and specifically the war on Al Qaida is on the borders of Pakistan and in Afghanistan. The only people actually fighting in that war are the pro-democracy electorate of Pakistan, whose rights and freedoms have been actively opposed by this Bush administration for 7 years.

Republicans, and everyone who supports the republican party agenda have taken a principled stand against the real war on terror. Instead, Republicans believe in having a war on balanced budgets, the constitution, and common sense. And freedom.

by hazmat on 05/11/2008 01:19:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
people fighting the war (none / 0)
and of course the undersupported marines and armed forces in afghanistan.

by hazmat on 05/11/2008 01:21:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No coincidence (none / 0)

Isn't it odd? I mean, the timing is soooo..how shall I put this? Ah, yes. Typical Republican politics - dredge up a side "issue" which really isn't one and affects practically no one, put it out stage center so the Press gang will have something to chew on, even though there is no nutritional value. Like good little lap dogs. Distraction, distraction, distraction. No clue as to why "good sportmanship" would (or should) come into play - that's not the Republican way! Win at all costs! Who cares if there is nothing but barren wasteland left behind, we WON, goddammit!

Nothing suspicious about a Conservative bench taking up an issue which hasn't been addressed since 1939 (no need). If they had simply declined to hear the case, the lower court ruling of "unconstitutional" ; would stand. Since that IS the outcome expected (even Liberal scholars agree with that likely eventuality) there is no pressing need for them to hear the case in June, which would mean that their decision will come down in September or early October. How fuckin' convenient, huh?

Oh, and it's been said that, "...legal scholar(s) I've talked to thinks that the court will overturn the D.C. gun ban. Not because of the court being more conservative now, but because even these highly liberal scholars would overturn it themselves, given the chance, and then specify the meaning of the right to bear arms as definitively as possible.

"It's worth mentioning that these liberal legal scholars largely want this outcome so that the NRA will have nothing to fund raise on ever again."

Oops! Better be careful what you wish for - you might get it!

by MedfordTim on 05/11/2008 12:56:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Misreading (none / 0)
No "right to keep and bear arms" refers to your right to have a small fortified castles with the arms of bears in it.

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 01:53:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll accept (none / 0)

either definition :-)

by hazmat on 05/12/2008 01:59:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Disprove your own point, much? (none / 0)
Cool, so you agree that he doesn't have any calls out to take away everyone's handguns. Good for you! That wasn't hard, now, was it? To just admit that your first post was WAY off base without a kernal of truth.

“bitter redneck yahoos who cling to their bibles and guns”.

Hey, nice phrase! You think that up all by yourself? Are you sure they weren't bitter redneck Googles? It'd easy to mix the two up when creating false quotes.

Sure am glad that there is no requirement in the Democratic party that all members march in lockstep and think exactly the same way the presumptive nominee does. It allows us to have differing opinions on Free Speech - which we are happy to expound upon in our caged "Free Speech Zone" which the Republicans have set up for the police department's convenience. It's right over there, twelve miles from the event the "Speech" is regarding. How thoughtful!

As far as Rush goes, he is painting himself into a corner with his "I want riots, I want overturned cars" bullshit. Inciting riots is NOT "Free Speech." If Al Sharpton said the exact same things in regard to the Republican convention, the Right would be calling for his head on a pike. And not a Jill Pike!

Ken, look past your paranoia - just long enough to realize that you guys HAVE to run on 2nd Amendment issues. The Bush Regime has already torn the rest of the Bill to shreds. There isn't much there for a Liberal (even an "almost" Liberal, like Obama) to mess with - the Republicans already gutted it.

You're not going to win this time.

by MedfordTim on 05/11/2008 12:24:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Free Speech? You're kidding, right? (none / 0)

You are against dems because your love of free speech?

Bush loves free speech so much he has a "free speech zone".  Which is far from the area around him where you can only say pro-Bush things.

And we all remember the politicization of the FCC.  Their crusade against Howard Stern comes to mind.  Evidently no one told the FCC that Stern occasionaly made questionable comments on his low profile radio show, I forget where it boradcasted at the time, until he criticized Bush.  Then, in an amazing coincidence, the FCC found some things on the show they felt were worthy of concern.  Massive fines followed.

And doesn't firing federal prosecutors who are investigating Republicans count as a free speech issue?

What about detaining people indefinitely without letting speak to lawyers or anyone else?

What about that Australian guy they let out but made him swear to talk to no one about his detention?

But the oblique reference to LOCAL control (thought Ken was a federalist?) of the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves and Ken turns up his nose and claims the moral high ground.  Nice.

Any other examples of Bush and his love of free speech, guys?

Damn, Ken will say anything to get that tax cut.

Viva la Tax Cut! 

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 02:16:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What? (none / 0)

Your guys went after Stern.  When did our guys fine Rush?

Humdee and Padilla were citizens in the US.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?  Pick up a fucking paper or stop lying, Ken. 

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 02:48:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
nice humvee (none / 0)
sorry about your penis size


by Chinese Democracy on 05/11/2008 11:30:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not Hamdam (none / 0)
Forget how to spell his name but is pronounced Humdee ( think) but regardless this completely fails to address Padilla who we agree was a US citizen, right?

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 11:29:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So we agree then (none / 0)

The Republicans shit on our civil rights at will and supress our freedom.  Glad we cleared that up.  Did you forget the argument in the middle of it again, Ken?

Tough loss, kid. 

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 11:58:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now get honest with yourself (none / 0)
"If you re-read my first post in this thread, you'll realize that I was jokingly admitting that I was responsible for the push poll calls, not Barack Obama."

Yeah, I caught that first time around, got a laugh, and pretty much ignored that the rest of the discussion. If you're referring to "any calls out", that wasn't about polls, that was "Obama has not made a public declaration calling for."

"But back to Rush Limbaugh, here is exactly what he said..."

Yup! Wanting to spread chaos aimed at a particular group, disrupt and sabotage the process, and seeks wanton violence at the Democratic convention in Denver. Again, you make MY point. Thank you. He truly is despicable, isn't he?

Tell you what - put Rush in a "Free Speech" cage in the middle of nowhere, take away his fucking microphone, and I am very happy to let him bleat his hatred and nonsense all day long. Otay?

"When you liberals try to abridge the right of the opposition to voice their opinions, it makes me all the more certain that you have absolutely no business in power. For once, I'm not kidding."

Well, if you're not kidding, then it's time to jump off that high horse of indignation and utter hypocrisy and start accepting responsibility for the actions of those you champion. Voice opinions about the process? Want to say outrageous things? Fine and dandy, but Freedom of Speech does NOT carry with it a license to stir people into an angry mob, ready to cause violence. Flat out lying is not Free Speech, although the Right seems to think so.

Here's the difference: "Femenazis are all ugly women who can't get laid." Outrageous, sure, but only an ugly stick-up-her-ass feminist is going to have issues. No problem.

"Now, this is Michael J. Fox. He's got Parkinson's disease. And in this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act." An example of pure, evil, a bald faced lie.
 
Then comes the crap which SHOULD result in him losing his license: "The dream end ... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategy, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's the objective here. And there has been nothing that's happened on the battlefield for my vision of this to change."

When confronted, he reacts in his usual manner - lies about what he said and tries to sluff it off on someone else's plate: "But the fact is that the Democrat Party has members in it that have already said, "There will be riots," or something to that effect. Al Sharpton. "

Except, as is usual, Rush doesn't bother to give an exact quote, let alone a realistic description of what was actually said. In this case, on that bastion of left-wing thought, the O'Reilly Factor. I wouldn't want to be accused of an "out of context" posting, so I'll present the whole relevant exchange. Notice how O'Reilly is not satisfied with any of Al's answers and how O'Reilly badgers him trying to get him to say what Bill-O wants to hear:
 
O'REILLY: All right. It looks like, and this has been a crazy race so anything can happen obviously, but it looks like Barack Obama will roll into the convention with more popular votes and more elected delegates. That's what it looks like.

But I'll tell you what: The Clintons aren't going to step aside. So let's just say — we don't usually do this, but I think this is educated speculation — let's just say Hillary Clinton gets the super delegates and gets the nomination, and Barack Obama is angry. What do you do? Are you going to get out there and demonstrate?

SHARPTON: Well, it's not a matter of just what do I do. It's what a lot of people…

O'REILLY: No, but I want to know what you do. You're a big Democrat. Come on.

SHARPTON: Well, I mean.

O'REILLY: Come on, you're a good guy. Are you going to be out there with signs?

SHARPTON: There will be many reactions. There will be many reactions.

O'REILLY: But yours? What is yours going to be?

SHARPTON: Mine will be based on if she legitimately wins it.

O'REILLY: No, just the scenario I gave you. Just the scenario I gave you. Barack Obama has got more popular and more elected delegates come convention time. He's denied it because of the deals of the super delegates. What does Al Sharpton do? Do you take to the streets? What do you do?

SHARPTON: Well, if he is denied the selection of the nominees by super delegates making backroom deals, not by the voters, well, you not only would see people like me demonstrating, you may see us talking about whether or not we can support that ticket. A lot would depend on what Senator Obama and those involved in this campaign say. But I would be prepared to talk about how can we support a process that we thought the conservatives against him in Florida — you can't have one man, one vote as your theme…

O'REILLY: All right.

SHARPTON: ...and then change it to say one's super man, one vote.


Okay, so what's missing? Why, that would be anything CLOSE to what Limbaugh asserts was said:

"'There will be riots,' or something to that effect. Al Sharpton. "

Us realists keep trying to hammer the point home, even though the Righties have their hands over their ears, eyes shut, and making "la-la-la-la-I-can't-h ear-you-la-la-la" sounds:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are NOT entitled to their own set of facts.

by MedfordTim on 05/11/2008 02:22:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Lets really be honest... (none / 1)
When you liberals try to abridge the right of the opposition to voice their opinions, it makes me all the more certain that you have absolutely no business in power. For once, I'm not kidding.

 

You know, you sure spend a lot time and energy worrying about free speech when the very people you defend rail at George Soros, Media Watch and other outlets as the root of all evil and have tried to get Olberman thrown off MSNBC, Daliy KOS banned and other "liberal" media otherwise restricted.

By the way...your conservative buds are trying to get Penthouse and Playboy pulled from the military PXs, BXs...when appeasing their Bible thumping crowd base your pals sell out the Constitution in a nanosecond.

So lets cut all the pretense Ken...all your really worried about is more tax cuts.

If shutting down ever liberal news and media outlet got you a little more money in you pocket, dollars to donuts you would forget you high minded defense of the Constitution and go for the cash.

by MRFred on 05/11/2008 02:36:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Amen brother (none / 0)
Can I get a witness?

by z1p101 on 05/11/2008 02:39:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Umm Ken (none / 0)
I haven't been posting much lately but I think his point went whizzing over your head.

by z1p101 on 05/11/2008 03:24:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
He got the point alright (none / 0)

he just chooses to ignore it and keep on spinning.

The "freedom of speech" attack is an old favorite and diversionary tactic. It is meant to bolster the old " liberals, democrats, people who eat broccoli...whoever hate America blah blah blah.

Whenever an argument is going south, impune the opponent with some outlandish claim in regard to their patriotism, etc...

Yawn. 

  

 

by MRFred on 05/11/2008 10:15:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dont forget (none / 0)
I need TP for my bunghole!

by MRFred on 05/11/2008 05:34:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I believe I just got a "push-pull" | 55 comments (55 topical, 0 hidden)