Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-03-30/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The House of Representatives passed the so-called "Paul Ryan" budget without a single Democrat voting for the bill; Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney received the endorsement of former President George H.W. Bush; and both parties braced for fallout from the Supreme Court hearing arguments on the healthcare law. Ton Elving of NPR, Nia Malika-Henderson of The Washington Post and Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Doyle McManus
columnist, Los Angeles Times.
Nia-Malika Henderson
national politics reporter, The Washington Post.
Related Video
George Zimmerman following the altercation that killed Trayvon Martin:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Patsy Nomore wrote:
"Treyvon Martin was gunned down on February 26,2012. Today is March 30,2012. 30 + days of NO investigation is NOT a rush to justice,but a STALL to cover up !!"
---------------------------------------------
Are you stil getting your info from MSNBC? The investigation has been going on since March 22. Governor Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi have appointed State Attorney Angela Corey to head up the Trayvon Martin death case.
"At this time, we are asserting an active criminal investigative information records exemption for any documents, videos, or factual information regarding the case," special prosecutor Angela Corey's office
strudel! I tried to be nice ... honestly! Yet you remain belligerant and argumentative. Oh, well!
You wrote:
"Delric Miller? Oh come on! Talk about comparing apples and oranges. "
Yeah, what the heck. Who cares about Delric Miller, anyway. Black infants in Detroit are a dime a dozen, right?! Again, there is no outrage because there are no political points to be scored ... and Delric Miller, of whose innocense there is absolutely no doubt, is just as dead as Trayvon Martin.
"And despite the attempt of people like you to assassinate Martin’s character"
And I did that where? What I said was that Trayvon Martin "was no angel". I didn't "assassinate Martin's character". He did.
"At the time, he was under suspension from school for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana"
"Last year Martin was suspended for spraying graffiti on school grounds. The Miami Herald reported that the school guard who stopped him searched his backpack and found 12 items of women's jewelry and a flathead screw driver that the guard believed to be a "burglary implement."
"Martin's family attorney confirmed today that the teenager was suspended from his Miami school three times over the past year. "
In my estimation, that equates to "he was no angel". I think that's a pretty fair standard.
Apology accepted.
But still, as I pointed out, he was a human being and does not deserve to be used in death the way he is being used by the leftist/anarchist/race-baiters.
"The only ones insulting Trayvon Martin, “his memory and his family”, are mindlessly partisan and ideological people like you! "
So where did I do that again strudel? Give me chapter and verse, not what ya think about what I wrote. I'll need quotes - in context. Or are you just another "Mike Larson" ... a bloviating flame thrower who can't back up what he posts?
Consultant wrote:
"Ms Rehm's recollections of yesterday's show re: O'bama care seems to ignore the opinion of one of the three guests (the only educated attorney on the panel) that the manadate will likely be thrown out. I realize that this does not fit the liberal talking point list that Ms. Rehm subscribes to - but - the truth is the truth even though it sometimes hurts."
-------------------------------------
That was indeed a bizarre recollection by Rehm. She desperately wanted to get her illogical point out that should the SCOTUS shoot down any part of the health care law, "they would be saying to the Congress you no longer have the right to make legislation." Diane figured that since several liberal court observers agreed with her opinion it must be true. Wow!
Happy to offend, thank you!
I think eventually there will be something like a race war, how far it goes who knows. I for one will not bow to political correctness and if pushed even the slightest will just lay it out as I see it. Life is too short for holding anything back when it comes to serious issues, if you can't handle the truth that's your problem.
Surprise! While DR is away for vocal treatment, her guest host wil be - If it isn't aspic it isn't Tom Gjelten. The guy who said:
"Both the New York Times and NPR are less opinionated in their approach to news coverage than FOX generally." TG
Just for laughs, Diane, instead of the usual liberal substitute hosts i.e., Kay, Sesno, Roberts, Page, how about a conservative fill in host during just one of your frequent absences?
Susan Page is not bad. I can't listen to Shteve Robertsh. His views are bad enough, but he always sounds like he has a mouth full of saliva. I can't stand listening to him. And his wife? Don't get me started! She used to be a lot more even handed, but he's definitely infected her. She shows up on ABC on Sunday morning from time to time. If she leaned any more left she'd fall off her chair.
As for the Gjelten comment, what do you expect, Marcus. The view of the left is, "you are entitled to my opinion". When they've had generations of a biased press, anything that is truely fair and balanced like Fox looks "opinionated" to them. But I believe the thinking among sensible people is finally beginning to shift.
A recent Suffolk University poll of 1170 likely voters; 39% Dems, 34% Reps, and 22% Independants asked the following questions:
"What TV news or commentary source do you trust the most?" Fox News came in first with 28%. The closest second? Undecided at 19% ... then CNN at 17%.
"What political reporter or analyst would you say that you trust the most?"
Bill O'Reilley came in first at 7%. Nearest second? Diane Sawyer at 5%. Most of the rest were at 1, 2, and 3%. That's huge.
johnandere, it's counter productive to highlight a type of firearm to make your point regarding black on black violence, unless of course you agree with Marcus that it is OK to ban an entire class of firearms.
"Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
2) I made no final conclusion about the Stand Your Ground laws, only that I believe there is reason to question the "wisdom" of such laws. There is far more evidence against them than just this incident. Among them: the rise in such killings after passage of such laws in every State where they were enacted, and the misuse and misapplication of such laws to allow people to literally get away with murder. In one Texas case, a man sitting safely in his home, saw a neighbor’s house being robbed. Despite being told by the 911 dispatcher not to go outside, he insisted he was going to “get them”. He then grabbed his shotgun, went outside to confront the robbers, and crying “Hello, you’re dead” killed both unarmed men. The Grand Jury demonstrated its respect for “sacred” human life by refusing to indict, even though he was never in any danger! This is a perfect example of the vigilantism these laws encourage, and Trayvon Martin is (possibly) an all too typical example of the innocent victims these laws create. I repeat: it is time to at least question the “wisdom” of such laws.
March 30, 2012 - 12:58 pm"
What's more, there was a Detective parked across the Street who watched the whole thing and didn't raise a hand to stop it.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
MarcusTullius on March 30, 2012 @ 1:05 pm wrote: “You have just demonstrated your own sharpshooter skills in assassinating character.”
Hardly, Martin was an A to B student in school, with some juvenile school problems. Zimmerman had previously been arrested for assaulting the police, and clearly had paranoia issues. (A black kid in a hoodie is cause to suspect “nefarious” intent?) I believe there was also some evidence Zimmerman had, to put it mildly, self-control issues.
None of this makes him an “evil” or even bad person, but I think it does demonstrate Martin was a better person.
(And remember, I was replying to ecgberht’s dismissive comments about Martin. So put my remark in context, please.)
The real question, of course, is what happened. As to that I make no judgment.
MarcusTullius on March 30, 2012 @ 1:55 pm wrote: Cars are being used as intended when they kill.”
PART ONE
Even you can’t be blind enough to believe such nonsense!
Cars are not manufactured, purchased, or used with the intention that they kill people. Indeed, they come equipped with various features designed to prevent just that. When used properly, in accordance with traffic laws, they do not cause death - except in case of accidents. And no one uses a car with the intention of being in, much less causing, an accident.
But, as the Stand Your Ground laws demonstrate, under the right circumstances killing someone is indeed the proper and intended use for a gun.
“You just said that guns kill if used as intended. Then you say they also cause severe injury. Then you said they can be used to suggest a 'threat'. Which is it?”
- Oh, please, that sophistry is too transparent even for you. The “threat”, of course, is of death or severe injury. Hence my water pistol example. If the only “threat” from Zimmerman’s gun had been a good soaking, we wouldn’t be having this debate!
“But this would be news to people who use firearms for plinking and shooting competitions where nobody gets shot.”
- Congratulations! You’ve just solved the entire issue of gun control for the nation. Everyone has the right to “keep and bear arms” - as long as the guns are only used for target practice! Otherwise, they must be kept locked up at all times, and rendered unable to be used. I’m sure the NRA will happily embrace that idea!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
“If a water pistol can not be used to "threaten" death, why are there so many laws now that demand they be made only in bright orange? Cap guns have to have orange plugs in their barrels. How many people were shot by LEO because they were brandisihing a toy weapon?”
- Who’s Leo?
Your capacity for sophistry (or am I giving you too much credit, and it’s just stupidity?) seems infinite. The reason for the “bright orange” color? Precisely so toy guns will not be mistaken for a real one, and perceived as a threat. (Thus avoiding the tragedies where kids have been killed because people mistook a realistic looking water pistol for a real weapon.)
“Since you have such a visceral fear of firearms, I suggest you never take advantage of your 2nd Amendment rights and purchase one.”
- I have no “visceral fear of firearms”. I have a very reasonable fear of some of the trigger-happy idiots allowed to carry them. Far too many of the people who own guns seem to fit that description. (Note: I do not say all gun owners do, or even a majority of them. Just that there are too many gun owners who do.)
The Second Amendment speaks of a “well-regulated militia”, and even the Supreme Court has said reasonable restrictions can be placed on the right to “keep and bear arms”. I’d say insuring that only people with the mental and emotional capacity to use them wisely and responsibly, and have been properly trained to do so, can carry guns is a wise policy. Sadly, it seems the NRA (and other groups) are determined to move us in the opposite direction!
Mike Sergeant on March 30, 2012 @ 1:26 pm wrote: “There is no evidence to support this statement.”
Sure, there is, and I previously provided some of it. Read my prior Comment replying to MarcusTullius.
ecgberht on March 30, 2012 @ 2:34 pm wrote: “. . . you remain belligerant and argumentative.”
When you insist on writing nonsense - hell yes!
For example:
“Who cares about Delric Miller, anyway. Black infants in Detroit are a dime a dozen, right?!”
Hogwash, sir. There was plenty of outrage, even a reward for information leading to identifying and capturing the killer(s). I’d say plenty of people care.
But the two killings, and the reason for attention about them, are completely different! What next? Are you going to argue that there’s so much attention to the Holocaust (instead of to spouses killing each other) because there are greater “political points to be scored”?
As for innocence, I believe all those murdered by the Nazi’s were just as innocent as O.J.’s wife (and Ron Goldman). And so were thousands of murder victims world-wide. Yet only the Eichman and Simpson trials merited world-wide media attention (some might say “fixation” in the latter case). Care to launch a right-wing diatribe about that!
This case deserves attention because of the many factors involved, including possible dereliction of duty by the officers on the scene, and the effect of the Stand Your Ground laws. Those factors are absent from the Delric Miller case.
Yes, his killer is still at large (like Zimmerman), but that’s because we don’t know who the killer is! A critical difference you are determined to ignore.
As for your attempt to assassinate Martin’s character, you did it in your first Comment, and continue to do so in your second. Everything you wrote is an attempt to belittle the concern expressed over this event, and to denigrate it as political opportunism.
The only political “hack” here is you!
MarcusTullius on March 30, 2012 @ 6:09 pm wrote: “That was indeed a bizarre recollection by Rehm. She desperately wanted to get her illogical point out that should the SCOTUS shoot down any part of the health care law, ‘they would be saying to the Congress you no longer have the right to make legislation.’ "
Oh brother! Let’s go to the video tape, shall we? (Or in this case the transcript for this story.) Here’s what Diane actually said:
“Now, yesterday, we had three court watchers in here. We had Joan Biskupic, who was in the court. We had Susan Dentzer, who writes for Health News, (sic) and we had Stuart Taylor, an astute watcher of the court, all of whom said, predicted the justices would uphold the law, saying that throwing it out would be saying to the Congress, you no longer have the right to make legislation, which is a fascinating point, I think, that some of the other court watchers did not bring out. So we shall see.” [Emphasis added.]
Get it? This wasn’t her point, it was Biskupic, Dentzer, and Taylor’s point. Cripes, can’t you at least be accurate?
As for predictions of what the Court will do, re-read my first Comment. Only fools make predictions, especially about that.
(And I agree, however, that the bit about “the right to make legislation” sounds inane. There are plenty of times neither the Congress nor the State legislatures “have the right to make legislation”. For example, see the First and Fourteenth Amendments!)
Oh, and contrary to Consultant’s assertion two members of the panel yesterday were lawyers: Joan Biskupic and Stuart Taylor, and they both agreed that you can’t predict the outcome. (Which is exactly what an experienced attorney should say.)
Oct21 on March 30, 2012 @ 8:10 pm wrote: “I for one will not bow to political correctness . . . .”
Then you must not be either a Republican or a Conservative (much less a Republi-Con). They’re the most “politically correct” bunch of all.
Especially after the Tea Baggers got rid of all the “RINO’s” in the party who weren’t conservative enough for them.
And who is it that’s running around saying Romney isn’t “conservatively correct” enough to be the nominee?
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
Oct21 on March 30, 2012 @ 8:10 pm wrote: “I for one will not bow to political correctness . . . .”
"Then you must not be either a Republican or a Conservative (much less a Republi-Con). They’re the most “politically correct” bunch of all."
"Especially after the Tea Baggers got rid of all the “RINO’s” in the party who weren’t conservative enough for them."
______________________________________
Libertarian.
As far as who is more politically correct, I do not see see the republicans trying to shut down political commentators with boycotts. I don't see republicans pouncing on ever word they don't like from the democrats and claiming some special interest group has been insulted. Liberal democrats hate the first amendment, it could not have been made more clear than by the Limbaugh controversy and the catholic religious freedom issue, and all this happened only a few weeks ago.
Oct21 wrote:
"johnandere, it's counter productive to highlight a type of firearm to make your point regarding black on black violence, unless of course you agree with Marcus that it is OK to ban an entire class of firearms"
It's counter-productive to mention facts?!
I have no interest in firearms or in banning ANY firearm and staunchly defend the second amendment. That doesn't change the fact of the weapon that killed Delric Miller. Or the fact that it is a common weapon of choice among drug dealers and gang bangers, the likely suspects in the Delric Miller slaying.
The holocaust and spousal murder? That's your answer?! Are you kidding me? strudel, look up the latin "non sequitur" (I'll help you, literally "does not follow"). There is plenty of attention to BOTH; the holocaust on a world-wide basis because it touches people world-wide. Spousal murder and spousal abuse seem to be more uniquely American. Does ever single case make national headlines? No. But Trayvon Martin did. Why? Because it was white on black, that's why! So, thanks for making my point.
"Yes, his killer is still at large (like Zimmerman), but that’s because we don’t know who the killer is! A critical difference you are determined to ignore."
Suggest you read the following. Your statement is patently false.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106552/Delric-Miller-IV-Fight-b...
Then I suggest you read this. It makes the point even better than I have.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/deaths_that_don_coun...
You singularly focus on the stand-your-ground laws and police "dereliction of duty" and ignore the racial component. Do you think that Sharpton and Jackson and black members of Congress and the f'ing PRESIDENT who said, "if I had a son he would look like Trayvon" are not playing on the RACIAL component of the killing?! Listen to them speak! It's their ONLY concern! Let me give you a little advise, strudel. When you're wrong, it's best just to back away not to keep making yourself look like a fool.
part deux.
And finally, I asked you to give me chapter and verse, quotes in context where I "assassinated Martin's character". Citing "your first post and your second post" doesn't really do that, now does it?
Let me sum it up once again for you. There is black on black murder on a near-daily basis in this country and you don't hear a peep. That is a tragedy. What is a bigger tragedy is when a light-skinned man (tagged by the media not as "hispanic" - the term they use when the subject is illegal immigration - but as "white hispanic") kills a black teen and that young man's death is used for political opportunism. So yes, what I wrote was an "attempt to belittle the concern expressed over this event, and to denigrate it as political opportunism" because that's what it IS - and THAT, by the way has NOTHING to do with Trayvon Martin's character.
johnandere wrote " the fact that it is a common weapon of choice among drug dealers and gang bangers, the likely suspects in the Delric Miller slaying."
Common compared to what?. The weapon of choice by far in the U.S. is the semi auto handgun. "assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes. Hard to conceal a rifle. I'm just advising you to not play into the liberals hands for gun bans. The cosmetic features of assault rifles makes them a prime target and a leverage issue to ban all semi autos, hand guns and rifles. Your Delric Miller point could have been put forward just as well without a specific type of firearm mentioned. A word to the wise, you know very well the facts can get lost very quickly in the minutia of picking apart the words chosen to make a point. The democrats are experts at it.
"common weapon of choice among drug dealers and gang bangers"
This is a democrat party talking point, considering only 2 to 3% of crimes are commited with "assault rifles" it is a LIE!
http://gunowners.org/fs9403.htm
Oct21 wrote:
"... unless of course you agree with Marcus that it is OK to ban an entire class of firearms."
----------------------------------------------------
If you are referring to Class III firearms, when were they banned, exactly? In 1934, they were taxed at $200 and required registration, CLEO sign off and background check. In 1986, they were no longer allowed to be imported for civilian sales and no new made U.S. ones were allowed to be purchased by non SOTs.
Now, if you can't live with that so be it, but there are many of us Class III owners who do live with it and continue to purchase them. I'm sorry if you cannot afford them, but the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee cheap Class III weapons.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Then you must not be either a Republican or a Conservative (much less a Republi-Con). They’re the most “politically correct” bunch of all.
Especially after the Tea Baggers got rid of all the “RINO’s” in the party who weren’t conservative enough for them."
-------------------------------------------
You once claimed that you would never resort to partisan petty name-calling on the DR Show board. Good to see that you are true to your convictions.
Oct21 wrote:
"I think eventually there will be something like a race war, how far it goes who knows."
-------------------------------------------------------
Now you are channeling Chuck Manson.
Second point taken, although just because a small percentage of crimes are committed with these types of assault weapons doesn't mean that drug dealers and gang bangers don't like them or that much of the crime committed with them is not committed by drug dealers and gang bangers. (See Operation Fast and Furious). Not many folks are going to stick up a bank with an assault rifle, plot to kill a business partner with one, or stick one in the ribs of an old lady while she's being mugged. But I will concede that this could have been better phrased.
On your first point, and your first post, we are not agreed. I was reporting a FACT in the case. Just because a fact is inconvenient to your position doesn't mean you leave it out. That is dishonest.
Oct21, we are on the same side. To me, it doesn't matter if assault weapons account for a tenth of one percent of crime or 100% of it, I am not in favor of banning them.
But, I'm not going to omit facts because they are inconvenient.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
Who’s Leo?
------------------------------------------
Law Enforcement Officer
-------------------------------------------
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
" The reason for the “bright orange” color? Precisely so toy guns will not be mistaken for a real one, and perceived as a threat. (Thus avoiding the tragedies where kids have been killed because people mistook a realistic looking water pistol for a real weapon."
---------------------------------------------
Don't blame me for your own benighted comments. You said "the whole purpose behind carrying a hand gun is the threat of death or severe injury! That’s why Zimmerman was carrying a gun, and not a water pistol." By your own admission above, a toy gun does indeed pose a threat. Please make up your mind.
-------------------------------------------------
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
I have a very reasonable fear of some of the trigger-happy idiots allowed to carry them. Far too many of the people who own guns seem to fit that description. (Note: I do not say all gun owners do, or even a majority of them. Just that there are too many gun owners who do.)
----------------------------------------------
Do you own any firearm? Have you ever fired one? Have you ever been confronted by any of these "trigger-happy idiots?" How many is "too many?"
---------------------------------------------
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
The Second Amendment speaks of a “well-regulated militia”, and even the Supreme Court has said reasonable restrictions can be placed on the right to “keep and bear arms”.. Sadly, it seems the NRA (and other groups) are determined to move us in the opposite direction!
----------------------------------------------------
The SCOTUS has already determined that the 2nd Amendment is not a collective right, but indeed an individual one. You need to keep current. Don't blame all firearm owners because the former Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre was a buffoon.
MarcusTullius wrote:
Oct21 wrote:
"I think eventually there will be something like a race war, how far it goes who knows."
-------------------------------------------------------
"Now you are channeling Chuck Manson'.
You think that's a crazy idea fine, just remember the riots of 1968, I lived in Chicago at the time, the 1967 Detroit riots, the Rodney King riots, the rise of the black flash mobs and countless other incidents. I do believe there is a seething hatred out there directed towards white people. I saw it when I was in school in the 60's and as an apartment manager in the 2000's. I believe it is entirely possible wide spread destruction is waiting for just the right kind of spark that could ignite it.
You will love this one, I do believe Ron Paul's news letter had something about this, I should look into it. The thing about Ron Paul and my ideas is I find out afterwords we agree so much, not I take his ideas and make them mine.
As for you johnander, as cool hand luke said "those bosses need all the help they can get", we don't need to be helping those bosses. I did mention U.S. when talking about crime guns. It would be reasonable to assume Mexican cartels might need more range, ha ha. you know rifles. Anyway accept for pictures I do not know what percentage of the F&F guns were rifles. The liberal media I am sure liked to use pictures of the "scary stuff", hand guns would have been boring. Makes me think that article you brought up with the AK also might have been liberal media spun.
With veteran profiteers like Sharpton and Jackson circling the corpse, now Trayvon's Mother has trademarked her dead son's name to cash in.
Reminds me of Joe Jackson trying to hustle his new record label while "mourning" Michael's death.
I forget, what was the name of Diane's guest earlier in the week who has written a book on the topic?
When the Supreme Court reveals in June that they actually upheld the health care mandate, it will surely come as a great surprise to all, but it shouldn’t. It is really a stroke of Machiavellian political genius to imagine that public relations experts have succeeded in getting Democrats to back a neo-conservative bill hatched at the Heritage Foundation and implemented by Mitt (wit), while Republicans shout and scream that it threatens to move us all one step closer to socialism. Political pundits are preoccupied with how its defeat might negatively affect the President’s approval rating, with progressives defending his support of it on the basis of how truly right of center it is. And it is! This should be cause for repudiating it, not championing it. There is absolutely nothing progressive about this bill. It has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with carving out commercial markets for industry and investor profits for Wall Street, via coercive government intervention. People need to stop believing the lies fed to them by BOTH corporate-backed parties. Without a public option, this bill effectively forces Americans into the position of being a captive market to private industry, feeding the greed of investors and subordinating them to the interests of high finance and commercial industry. Passage of this bill will mark the final linchpin of America’s descent into a neo-fascist, corporate state. It will not be out of step with the Supreme Court at all. It will be yet another feather in its extremist right-wing cap, in a long history of pro-business, anti-consumer/wage-earner/taxpayer decisions: Corporations are people; bribery equals free speech; and forcing consumers to buy from investor-led commercial markets that trade on the NYSE—with the full authority of the federal government behind them—is Constitutional, responsible, and good for your health.
Oct21 wrote:
"As for you johnander, as cool hand luke said "those bosses need all the help they can get", we don't need to be helping those bosses"
Lucas Jackson was in prison. Many people who are in prison have no moral compunction whatsoever. Often ... that's why they're in prison! Plus, THAT WAS A MOVIE.
I hope you will take this in the spirit it is intended ... if you have to depend on the OMISSION of fact to make your point then your argument is not strong enough. We are exactly on the same page with respect to encroachment on the second amendment, but the use of weapons by criminals can (and I believe will) never be a reason to outlaw them.
As for the type of weapon used in the Delric Miller shooting, what I posted was 1) not news and 2) accurate. The fact that an AK-47 was used was mentioned in every article I saw and would have been confirmed by the bullets found in the ceiling and walls, not to mention Delric Miller.
That this weapon was used, in fact should have brought outrage from the left ... but it didn't! They should have been screaming about the "war zone in Detroit that took Delric Miller as a casualty" I can just hear the words tripping from the lips of either of the good reverends. This, in my mind even more strongly emphasizes the hypocrisy of the black leftists like Sharpton, Jackson, Bobby Rush, and Frederica Miller. But black on black crime is not politically useful for them. They honestly, I believe, don't care about it. They care about making opportunistic political hay.
Oct21, I can't emphasize enough that we are on the same side. If you think I am insensitive to the dangers and the tactics of the progressive left you have not been around here much. Go back, read some of my posts and the posts of "ecgberht", the one I call my "brother from another mother". Other sensible posters will back me up on that, I'm sure.
I'll let you have the last word on this.
" Go back, read some of my posts and the posts of "ecgberht", the one I call my "brother from another mother""
I know exactly who you are and I appreciate your well thought out posts. In fact I think your posts are the most honest to be found here, I perceive mine as well to be just as honest but I will let you decide. I assume you know who I am as well. I think my posts have a unmistakable thread running through them. monte When you first mentioned the AK story a few days ago my antenna for a liberal opportunity raised my eyebrow. Alarm bells ring when I see a comment that can easily be turned around by the opposition and that is all I was trying to point out. The "as for you johnander" was not meant to be a hit but it sounds like it. Take a joke, I know it was a movie but it made some good political points, at the time Paul Newman was the new James Dean antihero, I am a big fan of the antihero. Thank you for your time.
You got me to thinking, I wonder if that infamous picture of the Fast and Furious guns is a fake, after all how many F&F guns have been captured anyway. For all we know that could be a picture of unrelated guns in some ATF vault, they have a massive collection. Time for a little checking I will let you know if I find anything. There is a running theme m.o. used at the ATF "always think forfeiture" this is not a joke.