I guess that's what happens when you ask a seventy year old man what his definition of "modern" is.

The gun lover throwing punches at each other.. hilarious.

from CNN, via Huff Post:
September 21, 2007
Clinton: I am not a lesbian
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Sen. Hillary Clinton's sexuality is not the most pressing issue on the presidential campaign trail, but it is likely to get a fair amount of attention on a lazy Friday in the nation’s capital.

The Advocate asked Clinton about past rumors that she is gay.
The New York Democrat tells “The Advocate” that she is not a lesbian, according to a story in Friday’s edition of The New York Daily News.

"It's not true, but it is something that I have no control over," Clinton tells the magazine in a story set for publication next week.

“People will say what they want to say," she added.''

Is this woman brain dead or what ??
Sometimes the handlers lose control.
I guess that's why Hillary's handlers won't let her take unfiltered questions,,,,,

You're not a lesbian, you're an opportunist and a crook, Hillary !!

I love to hear repubs go after each other. Like a bunch of old men in a senior citizen center.

Gee, according to these nut jobs, the kid who went on the killing rampage VA Tech. had every right to get his gun despite being a mental case, becasue according to them, there should be zero regulations from getting guns at gun shows and he could've gotten his gun there, as can any other mental case.  This whole 2nd amendment obsessions just amazes me!

McCain to Criticize Giuliani on Guns
LIBBY QUAID | September 20, 2007 11:05 PM EST |  
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate John McCain lobbed a thinly veiled attack at fellow rival Rudy Giuliani, describing the former mayor's "devious" attempt with a lawsuit "to bankrupt our great gun manufacturers......'

Please, please, please!!
Save the gun manufacturers !!
Won't you help ?
Give 'til it hurts !!

'...."My friends, gun owners are not extremists; you are the core of modern America," McCain said in the prepared remarks. "The Second Amendment is unique in the world and at the core of our constitutional freedoms.....'

Gun fighter nation !!
That's why we have the highest rates of murder in the world.
That's why we have the highest rates of violence in the world !!

The other myth is the big lie "strawman" myth. You just make up a big outrageous lie such as "cities do nothing about crime" and use it to avoid a real discussion of the issues.

Does McCain really believe it is a myth that some guns are acceptable and others are not? What does his stand mean in practical terms? Are heat-seeking missile launchers OK in private hands?  Where does he draw the line? Don't be chickenshit, tell us in concrete terms where he draws the line.  It is not black and white, don't try to polarize people, we are all just trying to reach an accommodation as to where the line gets drawn.

He says Bill Clinton went after the rights of law abiding gun ownwers? Bill Clinton got armor piercing rounds restricted on the recommendation of the nation's police chiefs to save police lives. Does McCain want to put them in danger? The gun bill also restricted large capacity ammo feeding devices and "assault" weapons. Does he really want those weapons back on the street? If he does he should say so and then the voters can decide what they prefer.

That pesky 2nd amendment. While we're abridging it, let's abridge others. Let's see, just for the hell of it, howbout the 1st, 5th, 9th, 12th and 17th? And especially the 21st?

Do you believe Senator McCain was correct in saying "If we surrender in Iraq, we will be back"?
Vote today at http://www.pollicious.com

Sen. McCain, please I'm begging you, give me something.  Look, I respect you and you are a hero, but I have a hard time defending a person to others who is acting as stubborn and old (I said it) as you are currently.  The last straw for me was changing your bus to "No Surrender."  I mean . . . what happened to my 2000 Maverick?

   All of this posturing is meaningless theatrics.  what the most obvious requirement is, is that we need change!  Change from a focus on benefiting Special Interests and a select few, who then return financial support and powerful overt and covert backing, while the majority receives only apathy, the costs, the problems and a lot of subterfuge.  Change from being led with arrogance and self-indulgence while they belligerently do what they want with an in-your-face attitude.  Change from dishonesty and from using their offices and America’s resources for their own purposes.  Yes, I feel very strong about this but I think that is understandable.  
    Who will the American people pick?  Well there is Fred Thompson who I see as probably the ideal pick for those who want 'more of the same'.  He appears as the candidate who has consistently demonstrated throughout his political and professional career that he can be directed, follow a script and focus on what others want while taking what they give.  His history tells the story.  Then there is Rudy Giuliani who I see as also being very capable of subordinating himself and of, like Fred, being the next ‘puppet’ for Special Interests.  Actually all of the Republican Party scares me as I have seen their blind loyalty and support for the current administration, as if they are owned, intimidated and controlled.  You almost expect to see them all standing at attention as they get their orders.  John McCain clearly demonstrates this concern when in 2004 he abandoned being the conscientious and independent Republican he was to become the dutiful and submissive Bush backer.  
    Then there are the Democrats and I’m just not a real Hillary Clinton fan.  I simply find her hard to trust, no matter what she says (actually that is quite true of all of them), and then I see her as being another sociopathic personality (like the one we have in office now only not so controlled by others).  Observing her in action, especially when she doesn’t realize the camera is on her, leaves me feeling that we are never presented the true person.  I like a lot of what Barack Obama says and John Edwards is interesting but I really need to know more about each of them.  
    Very likely, when all is said and done, I will just vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is as I just don’t want ‘more of the same’ and as I see it, the Republicans can’t be trusted to be different.  That comes from someone who was a long term registered Republican.  In 2003 I had just seen enough and changed my registration from ‘Republican’ to ‘Undeclared’ but actually before voting against George W. I hadn’t voted for a Democrat since John F. Kennedy.
Keep in mind that through all of this I have said, ‘as I see’ which indicates I believe it is all very subjective.  The only real recommendation I will ever make is that it needs to be totally subjective and that really means individual, not led by anyone else.  It really needs to be done with objectivity which can’t be achieved without putting all of our biases aside.  Whenever we are connected to something, when we have a bias, we are vulnerable to being manipulated, to being led and misled.  In the last two presidential elections we have vividly witnessed very strong and successful efforts to appeal to people’s biases and to manipulate people by those biases.  I suspect today that there are a great many who wish they hadn’t been so gullible in 2000 or 2004.  Remember, you can’t put any faith in anything the candidates say and especially not in what their third-party ‘hired guns’ say.  And the problem really isn’t being gullible; it is simply about our really thinking for ourselves.  It shouldn’t be about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal or Christian vs. non-Christian or about them being a woman or being black.  They really like to use those labels because once you accept the label, you’re hooked and they can then manipulate you.  Hopefully this time it will end up being who the American people really pick and not again someone who was creatively and deceptively pushed through.  [Sorry about the length of this, it just spilled out.]

The reason the murder rates are so high has nothing to do with legal gun ownership. It is because of the decay of morality. Get a grip, we have more restrictive gun laws now than ever before, so using your arguement there should have been a decline in violence. No one takes personal responsibility for anything. Its the governments fault, its the mfg fault, its the schools fault, the police were at fault, the nra etc. etc. etc.. As a whole we have not taught our children that they are responsible for their actions, regaurdless of anything else, you are the one to controll your future. Every one thinks that they are owed, no one wants to earn it anymore. That is why people think they can kill someone and take what they want. The Dems have created a perminate underclass. A group that believes that they cant make it without the govt telling them what to do, we have given them the right to kill and steal because its always some one elses fault. I am 43 years old. My family has always had guns, my grand father great grand father and so-on. There has never been a murder, robery or any other illegal use with our guns. There are millions of families just like mine. Taught right from wrong, and that we are the only ones that controll our future. When personal responsibility and respect for all life is taught, then and only then will the violence subside, no matter how many gun controll laws are on the books.

"The reason the murder rates are so high has nothing to do with legal gun ownership. It is because of the decay of morality.


lets think (Sent Friday, September 21, 2007 5:15 PM)"

Let's. Murder rates have DECLINED over time, with the lowest numbers coming under the Clinton administration, and have risen somewhat in the past couple of years.

When you cite a reason for your (incorrect) contention that is general in nature and unverifiable let alone provable, when you make a claim that is totally unsupported by the facts, and it is obvious that you did not bother to check them, that's not thinking.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

FYI: "lets" is a contraction of the words, "let us", unless that is your name.  


Van

You don't need to belong to the NRA to own a gun or multiple guns for that matter.  Just be the individual gun owner that you are and recognize the NRA for what it is - a powerful right-wing political lobbying machine that's always in high gear and always supporting the GOP.  Without members they're nothing right??  

Just generate a few manufactured and made-up threats to those sacred 2nd ammendment rights to bear arms and watch the gun fools come running with their membership money and continuing donations.  Boy howdy do the gun manufacturers love the NRA and idiots like McCain (and now Romney). They're probably paying 'swiftboater' organizations covertly to generate gun-owner threats on a routine basis.  Romney is just an uber-rich dork that's got nothing better to do than be president - War hero?? McCain is most pitiful political sell-out I've seen in 40 years - he can't bend over far enough.

People will join any damned membership group - club, political organization, church group, fraternity, or what have you to maximize their own self-interest.  Covertly start threatening that self-interest and watch the lemmings come running to 'protect their rights'.  And I'm not talking about valid theats to the Constitutional Law of the land - apparently Congress itself fails to recognize the current threat that we're living with and choses to ignore for political expediency (too bad they're not as proactive & as easily offended by (internal) threats to the national self-interest as the whacko NRA).  

Why the hell does anyone think we're suffering with Bush right now??  Threaten the voters with impending annihilation and about half will vote for any authoritarian figure that claims to know exactly how to protect their sorry asses - nevermind that the 'threat' was founded on lies and more lies - but watch.....in '08 the same 50% will be voting for another republican joker that tells them what they want to hear  - given the recent behavior of Congress I really don't think democrats can necessarily plan on the sweep that once seemed so inevitable - democrats in the Senate are alienating their base on a daily basis lately - at least Pelosi saw the handwriting on the wall and refused to entertain the possibility of straw vote in the House on  the 'moral' position of the MoveOn advertisement.
She actually recognizes Free Speech when she sees it - and also recognized the double-edged sword of calling out MoveOn for exercising that right...and speaking the truth.

It will be a fine day for us all when the day of lobbying reform and campaign finance reform becomes a reality - lobbyists come between Congress and the interests of their constituents (that's us) about 100% of the time.  And of course it's always all about money.  The NRA represents a sizable part of that problem.

The argument for gun control can be summed up in a single graph that shows per capita gun ownership along one axis and per capita homicides along the other. It's no surprise that our nation is much higher in both categories than most other countries in the world. If people can't shoot people, fewer people are killed. Amazing, huh?

So obviously gun ownership and gun-related killings are correlated, but what about morality? I like the example of the nations of Scandinavia. Countries like Norway and Sweden have high suicide rates, extremely high divorce rates and a lot of smoking and alcoholism. The list goes on. To top it off, their governments are social democracies (gasp). Basically they're filthy dens of immorality, right?

Guess how much murdering they have going on.

A standing ovation for ""VAN""! A wonderful Posting!

The Moral state of are nation is no more than sitting at the edge of the gutter!

Just take a look at what is running for President!

The Clintons have a sense of moral being as likened to a Whore ""HE"" and ""SHE""  the Pimp! We had eight years of never ending scandal and even impeachment. The twisting of laws by the Clintons only to be "Self Serving. The picture was as they and the ACLU were sleeping with each other.

Crime according to the Clintons """WHAT IS CRIME"""

Their never ending efforts to undermine the military and to disrupt unity.. Reports out that ""SHE"" intends to change the Veterans Affairs name upon becoming President.  She and the clan of three ""Kerry" "Kennedy" Biden" have all but destroyed the military.

So,the word is spreading and the general population is now starting to see. The Goose steping Painted clown.  Just another Washington Paper Hanger!

Hey Van , lets serve up some more ""TRUTH"". America is coming out of the ""DARK""!

Guns kill people , people kill people, people with guns kill people. Children with guns kill children.

My family has owned guns for generations, going back to the founding of our nation and Native American heritage.  No one in my family has ever shot or killed anyone. My husband was murdered. It was not with a gun.

I don't agree with people purchasing guns without proper background check, these days. As our nation becomes more populated the odds of murder by guns--murder by any means will go up as there are more murdererous people in the population. So, yes, I agree with background check. The waiting period can be good in cases of passion or tempers flairing.

I see no sense in different gun controls for different geography. My family has owned guns in city and country. The second amendment is part of the law of our land. no one has to like it. Just like freedom for us to say what we think about it, provided in the first amendment. I know folks who would've preferred I didn't have that right at times.  ;)

As for McCain and the Romney myth, Romney is full of myths. Go McCain! At least he isn't afraid of Romney's name-calling!  :)

The days of interminably hunting for accurate opinions having to do with this idea have ceased.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):