The Young Turks: Comments : Victory for the Constitution! : News : Politics : Commentary

Main Menu

Login

Victory for the Constitution! | 119 comments (119 topical, 0 hidden)

I'm sure these former DC residents are overjoyed.

3 Children Shot In Northeast Washington
Woman Shot Walking in Northeast Washington
Mother Shot With Family In D.C.
Man shot dead, 2 wounded in Washington DC
Woman fatally shot at Washington DC YMCA Center
18-Month-old Boy Shot
D.C. Teen Is Shot To Death In Home...

and on and on and on.

To bad we don't worry about the individuals right to not get their head blown off. That truly would be a great victory.

by MRFred on 06/27/2008 01:00:12 AM EST

How can... (none / 0)

Americans live in cities? It sounds like a guerilla war!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/27/2008 01:03:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: Easy... (none / 0)

keep your head down, don't go out at night and sleep in the bathroom..in the tub.

by MRFred on 06/27/2008 01:12:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Sad Story (none / 0)

Those are some nice sad stories Fred, now point to me any of those crimes commited with a legal firearm....

That's right criminals will have guns no matter if there is a law or not. The only thing the law impacts is if the innocent victims get to have a fighting chance. How did severe gun restrictions impact the UK?

Fred, why don't you post a graph of how prohibiting handguns in DC lowered the crime rate...

If you can't find that, how about a study that conclusively shows that gun control lowers crime rates?

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 05:16:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0)

Guns dont cause crimes, but they sure enable them to occur. About the UK, the biggest reason crime went up from 1979-92 is because "That-whore" was in power and destroyed employment and the welfare state in the UK, as people become desperate they become more likely to engage in crime.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/27/2008 11:20:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]

getting warmer (none / 0)

" About the UK, the biggest reason crime went up from 1979-92 is because "That-whore" was in power and destroyed employment and the welfare state in the UK, as people become desperate they become more likely to engage in crime. "

Getting closer there Nick...you are starting to realize that the correlation between gun ownership in crime is limited at best and negative at worst (more studies showing legal ownership of firearms DECREASE crime rather than the other way around). The real causes of crime are of course socialogical.&n bsp; All gun control does is create an asymetrical power structure where criminals are in an advantaged position (because they don't care about laws and have guns anyway). Since you are very big on fairness, the fairest thing you can do is provide people the right to armed self defense.

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 02:48:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]

You must be irrational (none / 0)

"The real causes of crime are of course socialogical.&n bsp; All gun control does is create an asymetrical power structure where criminals are in an advantaged position"

That's exactly WHY I support gun control laws, the gun itself doesn't cause the crime, it cannot. What the gun does do is EMPOWER and ENABLE crime to occur. If there were less guns, there would be less gun related crime (duh!), by less guns I mean not merely restricting the access to guns but to stop production of hand guns. I am ok with firearms for hunting, or recreational use, but I do not see ANY utility in hand guns. I know of no one who owns or carry's a hand gun here in Canada, I think it is illegal to do so, and we have a MUCH lower crime rate. There are many factors to that, an actual government, social services, ok economy, access to education, AND lack of access to guns. We have our gun crime thanks to YOUR liberal gun laws, they are illegally imported from the US and end up in gangs...USA ruins life.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/27/2008 05:57:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]

False! (none / 0)

Nick Nick Nick...you wan't unbreak the egg. You can't put the cat back in the bag. IF you could somehow eliminate all firearms from the face of the planet and all knowledge of how to build them and make gun powder THEN I could possibly support gun control. Unfortunatly you can't do that. Thus your choices are to disarm the innocent and only allow the criminals and tyrants to have guns OR you allow everyone the choice to have guns, leveling the balance of power. Which to you think is the more egalitarian solution?

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 06:16:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Where did I make this crucial assertion? (none / 0)

" IF you could somehow eliminate all firearms from the face of the planet" ?

Re-read my post...get a clue.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/27/2008 06:27:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]

hold your hand (none / 0)

Do I have to hold your hand through everything!?!

I never said you did. I said that was the only way that the logic that you proposed...Gun control = fewer guns = fewer gun deaths...works. Since the world already contains a large number of guns ,and criminals by definition do not follow the law, all gun control does is assure asymetrical power between a criminal and his victim. With legalized guns at least the victim has a choice to be on equal footing and the criminal has to wonder if his target is a dangerous wolf of a docile sheep.

Here is the argument from an economics perspective...guns and drugs are two perfect examples of supply finding a way to meet demand. No matter how hard you try to restrict both, criminals and addicts will find a way to get their hands on them. The only thing that tougher restrictions do is make it more profitable for the gun runners and drug dealers. The only way to solve the problem is to eliminate demand. Supply side solutions are pointless.

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 06:44:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]

False (none / 0)

Since the world already contains a large number of guns ,and criminals by definition do not follow the law, all gun control does is assure asymetrical power between a criminal and his victim. With legalized guns at least the victim has a choice to be on equal footing and the criminal has to wonder if his target is a dangerous wolf of a docile sheep.

Then, basically let everyone in the society be armed? Thats absolute insanity, I barely trust people to vote let alone to hold everyone else's lives in their hands. I do not own a gun, none of my friends families own guns, yet we seem to be relatively safe. This logic you present is non-existent outside of the US, no where is this argued apart from the US. Basically no one here would buy this specious argument because its transparently bull-shit. Civilized countries and cultures realize that "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind"...sorry for the cliche, but its true. The end of gun crime has to start somewhere, it is a question of the chicken and egg, so lets just pick one or the other and get it done with. In addition, how many innocent people are killed when people ASSUME they are doing nefarious things and are not? Its just a all-round HORRID idea, created by the gun-lobby to SCARE the American people into supporting their profits. American, right-wing politics = politics of fear, no logic necessary.

"The only way to solve the problem is to eliminate demand. Supply side solutions are pointless."

Err...wrong, the solution is to BAN HAND GUN PRODUCTION (including bullets)...problem solved. Yes gun crime will continue after the ban, but over the years through attrition the rate of gun crime will decrease to near nil. Again, re-read what I wrote not what you want to read.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 02:21:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I've got an idea (none / 0)

Why don't you focus on WHY people kill eachother and not WHAT they use?

by alphasigmookie on 06/28/2008 04:35:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Bc (none / 0)

thats only dealing with 50% of the problem...no guns...no gun crime...crime will always exist so why empower the scum? If there are no guns...and no gun crime...then normal people do not need them! OMG LOGIC!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 11:28:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Realism (none / 0)

Because your logic only works in your simplified imaginary world. Sure wouldn't it be great if everyone could live in peace and we could magically make all guns and weapons disapear? Group hug anyone?

Unfortunatly the real world doesn't work like that. Guns have been invented so they will always exist, you can't uninvent technology. You can pass laws banning guns. You can limit manufacturing. However there are already hundreds of millions to billions of guns in existance. You can't get rid of them all. And even if you some how could, you couldn't prevent people from manufacturing guns and ammo underground. It doesn't take much to mold bullets from melted wheel weights. Gunpowder is simply charcoal, sulfer and potassium nitrate.

As for the practicality of confiscating weapons. the US has had over 100k troops doing house to house searches all over Iraq and they can't even come close to even slowing down the avaliablity of arms. The only practical outcome is a situation where the opressive government and criminals have guns and law abiding citizens can only hope they both decide to leave them alone. As even you have admited there will always be crime and since you can't really eliminate guns there will always be gun crime. I will grant you that with highly restricted firearm avaliability criminals may decide to stick to swords and knives, but this still gives them an advantage over law abiding citizens because they can't carry weapons in your "safe" world.

I do however support more training and education about gun safety and responsible gun ownership. A big part of America's problems (guns, alcohol, sex etc) stem from the fact that our culture both celebrates them and demonizes them at the same time. Becasue we spend so much time telling our kids that they are all bad we are never really honest with them and teach them how to use them reasponsibly. The swiss don't have problems with gun violence despite their high ownership because the people who own them have been trained how to use them properly. The french don't have a bunch of alcoholic high school students because they are tought to drink casually and don't have to wait till their parents leave to have a major kegger behind their backs. The real problem in America is that we have been so coddled and tought to think that everything is someone else's fault that we have completely lost all sense of personal responsibility (credit card debt and mortgage crisis anyone?). Fix the core problem and maybe we can talk about limiting gun ownership.

by alphasigmookie on 06/28/2008 10:05:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Imagination (none / 0)

I was listening to Sviridov's classic Time Forward...enjoying life...then I read your post!

"Because your logic only works in your simplified imaginary world. Sure wouldn't it be great if everyone could live in peace and we could magically make all guns and weapons disapear? Group hug anyone? "

Where did I say to ban all forms of gun production, and where did I say that all guns were to disappear? The one with the imagination here is you, making up arguments that aren't there...since this is the thesis of your entire argument...you really wasted your time. Grade: F *I mark papers...and you would fail in my class* :)

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 10:39:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]

You were right about one thing (none / 0)

I certainly am wasting my time with you!

Rebuttal:

"Where did I say to ban all forms of gun production, and where did I say that all guns were to disappear? "

Post before:

" If there are no guns...and no gun crime...then normal people do not need them! OMG LOGIC!"

Logic? I feel for the poor schmucks that get stuck with you as their TA!

by alphasigmookie on 06/28/2008 11:03:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Wrong... (none / 0)

Before, I made a qualification specifying which forms of guns should be banned from production:

If there were less guns, there would be less gun related crime (duh!), by less guns I mean not merely restricting the access to guns but to stop production of hand guns.

Err...wrong, the solution is to BAN HAND GUN PRODUCTION (including bullets)...problem solved.

Secondly, I never said I was against every form of gun ownership:

I am ok with firearms for hunting, or recreational use, but I do not see ANY utility in hand guns.

ERGO, you lose...all refernces to guns after those qualifications, implied those qualifications to be assumed by the astitude reader...you get a F still....burn!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 11:35:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Funny goy you are! (none / 0)

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 11:57:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]

What the hell (none / 0)

would know about freedom and liberty? You would mount government controlled cameras in your home if it meant getting a tax break.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "

Ben Franklin, one of our founders.

"During time of war, the president is given far-reaching executive authority to prosecute the war. Even the Bill of Rights do not supersede this authority."

KenTX, neo con boot licker.

by z1p101 on 06/29/2008 01:16:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]

z1p101 knows what's up! (none / 0)

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "

Ben Franklin, one of our founders.

I love that quote! Based on that statement i'm assuming you're supporter of the 2A! Without the 2A the rest of the BOR is virtually useless!

by alphasigmookie on 06/29/2008 05:31:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Of course (none / 0)

you can't pick and choose which ones you like and which ones you don't for political expediency like Ken does.

by z1p101 on 06/29/2008 01:01:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Outrage? (none / 0)

I only have enough left for what has happened not for what might have happened.
"Zippy is much more concerned about the warrantless surveillance of a cell phone conversation between an al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan and another al Qaeda operative in Iraq."
If that were the case I would not be concerned. However, the White House has admitted to wire tapping people within our boarders without warrants. They say they were only doing it Al Quada members. Why should I believe them? True Conservatives and Libertarians are distrustful of government by nature. What does that make you? I suggest you take your test again and be honest this time.
Don't bother telling me about your football carrier or your dad or calling me gay because I don't care.
"Zippy is much more concerned about the constitutional rights of an al Qaeda operative, taken prisoner on the battlefield in Afghanistan. He wants to give them a jury trial in the American courts."
There are many documented cases of people who were picked up in the "Afghanistan sweep" who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and were falsely accused. Don't bother to link to your "they rejoined the battle" stories because if I was picked up for no reason and shipped off to a secret prison where I was put in "stress techniques" for years all I would be thinking the whole time is if I get out of here I will look for payback. If you were half the man you claim to be you would understand that but you would most likely go back to your boot licking ways.
"Zippy is much more concerned about military personnel interrogating al Qaeda detainees with stress techniques."
Living in a society that prides itself in liberty, freedom and democracy is not the safest way to live but you do need to lead by example.
To sum up, if you allow them to take one part of your Bill of Rights away it will not be long before they want them all. If they can throw "them" into secret prisons forever it will not be long before they come for you. History teaches us that and in my opinion it is not worth a lousy tax break. The odds that I will be shot to death are higher than any other industrialized country but I accept this risk because I believe in our way of life. Isn't that what you are always trying to explain to Nick? Since you are such a Libertarian and a Goldwater fan you should understand these concepts.

by z1p101 on 06/30/2008 03:05:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]

stubborn (none / 0)

for some stupid reason I kept thinking he is capable of reasoanble thought. I guess I was wrong. Oh well, I tried...

by alphasigmookie on 06/29/2008 05:35:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: You better not (none / 0)

be talking about me Mr. illiterate.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/
by Nick86 on 06/29/2008 11:34:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Nice graph (none / 0)

Why don't you get a clue. Pointless.

The UK gun crime rate is significantly lower than the US by factor of 10. 80,000 gun shot wounds in the US vrs 11,000 gun incidents of all kinds..including murders, in the UK There is no comparison of the 2 countires and no direct proof that gun ownership lowers violent crime.

Show me direct empircal proof that gun ownership lowers violent crime. Violent crime has been dropping nationwide in the US for several years now. Show me that gun ownership directly lowers violent crime nationwide. Prove it. You can't.

Of course you conveniently overlook other factors..like drugs:

I could demonstrate how rising oil prices lowers violent gun crime, or rising Fox News ratings lowers violent gun crime...or the decline in rating for American Idol lowers violent gun crime.

By the way, those are nice sad facts.

I wasn't aware tha kids are part of the well regulated militia. I guess kids need to start packin heat in mookie world. Time's change I guess.

Most Americans cant even drive a car correctly much less own a gun. No matter, the SCROTUS has spoken. Keep you head down kids.

by MRFred on 06/27/2008 03:40:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]

thanks for proving the point (none / 0)

my point was that there was very little correlation between gun control and LOWERING crime rate (and if there was it was a negative correlation). I have said EXACLY that the causes of crime have nothing to do with gun avaliability. Drugs is a perfectly fine example. If you want to reduce crime, decriminalize drugs, don't disarm innocent citizens.

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 03:50:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Your welcome (none / 0)

Now that I proved my point, how about proving yours.

by MRFred on 06/27/2008 04:24:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]

As Expected (none / 0)

A complete non-sequitor and thinly veiled racist rant. Nice. As expected....

by MRFred on 06/27/2008 04:27:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]

A friend and I have been talking... (none / 0)

About the new Republican coalition.
First, it has to keep the anti-tax, anti-regulation, pro-corporate and wealthy people because that is what the whole damn thing is about.

I think they might ditch the whole anti-immigration thing and crazy go nuts embracing the Catholics. Try to court the shit out of the brown vote.

Right now they have:

Rich and corporate (not going anywhere).

Racist (dying out, suspect they will be abandoned).

National Defense voters (Dems are waging a war for these and the GOP has done a terrible job in this arena)

Religious nutjobs (Old school protestantism is on the decline, nontheless, I think the future may be here, but with a more Catholic bent).

Anyone else have a vision of the next GOP coalition?

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 05:12:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I have been worried about that (none / 0)

But then the GOP found something they hate faaaaaaar more.

La Migra!

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 05:47:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I'm not convinced (none / 0)

That they can corral the Catholics. Definitely some, but not all.

From wiki:

Catholics represent the largest Christian denomination in America with about 65 million professing the faith in 2003. The 2001 census bureau estimates that 25.9% of the population of adults identify themselves as Catholics...It is even said that Catholics have represented up to 30% of the voting population in recent elections.

Traditionally, Catholic voters have voted more for the Democratic pary, opting for civil rights and social security. However, in recent decades, with civil rights for Catholics playing a lesser and lesser role, the Catholic vote is less uniform, and many voters are influenced through issues of abortion and gay marriage. This is coupled by the drifting apart of some Catholics from the church through questions of birth control usage and feminist issues. When it comes to personal issues such as marriage and the family, Catholics are generally considered conservative, but on issues concerning social justice, they are generally considered liberal.

by desertpear on 06/27/2008 08:25:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: oopsie doopsie--sorry (none / 0)

by desertpear on 06/27/2008 08:26:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: Catholics (none / 0)

I meant "those who vote on Catholic religious issues." Not all Catholics. All political coalitions are made up of voting blocks. The Republicans is falling apart which happens to all parties every few decades. The next succesful incarnation of the GOP will be a different set of voting blocks. I think Catholics (especially Hispanic Catholics) who are willing to vote on abortion and other social issues might be a major part of the new coalition but that means dropping immigration.

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 11:03:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]

How are you not a Ron Paul supporter??? (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 05:07:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: And he hates minorities to boot! (none / 0)

Perftect Ken Kandidate

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 05:37:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]

This is silly (none / 0)

And you know for a fact that the reason violent crime went down is because gun ownership is up? This is horseshit. I don't believe it for a second.

I'll bet you that violent crime will increase significantly in the next 5 years. It won't have anything to do with how many people own guns. It will have a lot to do with how many people who are doing very poorly financially have access to guns, immediately or potentially.

A large number of violent crimes are crimes of desperation, and there is going to be a lot more desperate people in the not so distant future.

by bfaul on 06/30/2008 09:51:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: To my knowledge (none / 0)

The crime statistics of the 70s vs 80s vs 90s are mostly driven by crack cocaine's rise and fall.
There is probably a similar correlation with meth and the last two decades.

by ProfRich on 06/30/2008 12:14:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]

C'mon Fred! (none / 0)

If we start worrying about people's right to not get killed by guns what would that do to gun sales?

Then where would gun manufacturers be?

Get real Fred. Do you even know what the profit margin was on the gun that killed those three chidlren?

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 07:51:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Burn Straw Man Burn!!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0)

"If we start worrying about people's right to not get killed by guns what would that do to gun sales?"

Rich please get the hell out of here with your straw man! You can't put the cat back in the bag. Gun poweder exists (blame the damn Chinese) and as long as it does, criminals will find a way to have guns. You're almost as bad as Nick with his "communisim will work as long as it doesn't have to compete with capitalism" arguments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ uk_news/politics/2640817.st m

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 02:56:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I don't think you understand my point (none / 0)

I am just saying a massive driving factor behind the gun rights movement is gun manufacturers wanting to sell more guns.

Just like the gas and car companies pour millions into campaigning against public transportation.

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 03:08:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0)

Your point first point is that the avaliablity of guns causes people to die and that gun control can decrease the number of innocent people who are killed.

Your second argument is equally retarded of course. The market cap of the two largest publicly traded firearms manufacturers in the US...Smith and Wesson and Ruger is less than $400 million! They have virtually no lobbying power at all! Gas and Car companies run into the hundreds of Billions! Even then a large portion of their revenues come from sales to governments and police forces.

The NRA on the other hand has an annual budget of ~$200 million all paid for by the over 4 million individual tax payers that rely on it to protect their constitutionally guaranteed right. No Rich, the the power of the gun lobby does not come from wealthy business interests, it comes from millions of honest, hard working Americans who only want their country to live up to its promises.

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 03:45:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Umm, no (none / 0)

That was Fred's point. I just riffed off it.
As for the second part, if you really don't think the gun mfrs aren't behind the whole NRA movement, at least in part, I think you are woefully naive.
But they can't be because the car and oil industry is much bigger? Are you suggesting the car and oil industries aren't fucking us? I would easily believe they are fucking us 100 times more than the gun folks are.
Although you could be arguing th gun people are in direct competition with the car and oil people but I really don't get that.

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 05:00:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Excellent point Rich (none / 0)

Of course this is all about the profit motive of the gun makers. Who do you think funds the NRA and the never ending fight against reality?

The USA has more people in prison than any other nation, even more than China.

The USA has a gun culture doesn't respect life.

I'd have no problem if we did something like the Swiss do and have everyione who owns a gun have to do militia duty and training once a year to bear the responsibility of the right to keep and bear arms.

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 06/27/2008 04:02:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Swiss (none / 0)

Again the swiss are a perfect example of how guns aren't the problem...people are the problem. I would however have no problem having mandatory firearm safety training in high schools. Ignorance is the true danger when it comes to firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Gun_politics_in_Switzerla nd

The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.<sup>
</sup>

Police statistics for the year 2006<sup> </sup>records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordinance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordinance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 05:19:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Breaks my heart (none / 0)

If only Charles Whitman would have had firearm training...

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 05:38:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

When (none / 0)

Did I say or even imply this?

"You're almost as bad as Nick with his "communisim will work as long as it doesn't have to compete with capitalism" arguments. "

Like MFred said...prove it!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/27/2008 05:50:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

creative licese (none / 0)

sorry it was your boy Trotsky that explicitly made the argument, but you basically agree with it based on our previous discussion on the topic when you said your plan for no private capital ownership would only work if the whole world adopted the system. I can look it up for you if you want me too.

Trotsky agreed that a new socialist state and economy in a country like Russia would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world, as well as the internal pressures of its backward economy. The revolution, Trotsky argued, must quickly spread to capitalist countries, bringing about a socialist revolution which must spread world-wide."

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 06:04:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Go ahead...I don't care (none / 0)

but don't quote me as if I said that I thought communism was this or that without proof...you are notorious for putting words into people's mouth's. So if you have the time, and I am more than certain you do-not a compliment-write a whole thesis of my arguments and theories...it'd be an interesting read, not for the objectivity but the manipulation...which you are accustomed too.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/
by Nick86 on 06/27/2008 06:14:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Victory for the Constitution! | 119 comments (119 topical, 0 hidden)