The lies roll off the man's lips like music off Yo-Yo Ma's cello. Both are virtuosos - one a cellist, the other a liar.
A partial list.
Bush had nothing to do ...
Happy Friday.
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor.
"Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage. Mitt Romney doesn't even support same-sex car pools." –David Letterman
"The head of ...
Republican Rep. Mike Coffman at a Saturday afternoon fundraiser in Colorado.
I don't know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that. But I ...
Rand Paul:
Call me cynical, but I didn’t think his [Obama's] views on marriage could get any gayer.
We won't call Rand cynical. Ignorant, bigoted asshole is more fitting. An adult using ...
Happy Friday.
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor.
"President Obama came out with approval of same-sex marriage. He said that over the years, he has ...
I've never understood Log Cabin Republicans - gay conservatives who give their support to a homophobic political party that derides their sexuality and refuses to grant them equal rights under ...
Finally.
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own ...
Election roundup:
Indiana.
As polls forecast, the Tea Party's efforts to cleanse the GOP of any impure conservatives has Dick Lugar out and teabagger Richard Mourdock in. Mourdock is the new Republican ...
There are lies...and then there are lies.
My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that’s finally what ...
From the papers captured last year at Osama bin Laden's Pakistani hideout comes this.
Like any public figures, bin Laden and his advisers were mindful of the media. Adam Gadahn, one ...
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor. Happy Friday.
"Today Mitt Romney visited a firehouse here in New York City. Of course, he was disappointed ...
It happened to Kerry. Can it happen to Obama? Nope says Margaret Carlson.
Obama’s belief system -- in that hopey-changey business and the post-partisanship thing -- has been altered by reality. ...
Sullivan:
What do Republicans call a gay man with neoconservative passion, a committed relationship and personal courage?
A faggot.
Exactly right, but then could one expect anything different from a political party that ...
And they claim that atheists are immoral?
The ugly side of religion shows its face once again. The words below were spoken at a Sunday sermon by Sean Harris, a pastor ...
It's been fun watching conservatives and Romney twist themselves into pretzels trying to undo Mitt's past words on GM and bin Laden.
Romney, April 2007:
It’s not worth moving heaven and earth ...
In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, a couple of scholars from liberal and conservative think tanks, discuss the state of American politics.
We have been studying Washington politics and ...
Romney's VP-in-waiting, Marco Rubio, is perfecting the conservative sleaze play.
He has proposed his version of the Dream Act in which people who entered the country illegally as children will be ...
Beyond the rhetoric, the political BS, the lies - that is, the concerted effort by the right-wing noise machine to distort and misinform at every opportunity - is the very ...
It was never a matter of 'if'...only of 'when'.
Two constituencies that President Obama is holding onto about as strongly now as he did four years ago are voters under 30 ...
A new rule in effect Monday will end nearly a century-old ban on firearms in America’s national parks and wildlife refuges. Visitors can bring concealed, loaded guns with them on vacation if they are legal under the laws of the state they are in.
The change passed on a bipartisan vote in May as an amendment to an Obama administration credit card reform bill. It grew out of changes sought in the final months by the Bush administration and gun rights advocates.
Another victory for insanity.
___
To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s fan page by clicking here or to receive email notifications of new posts, click on Subscribe. .
Well, what started out in Tennessee is now a national concern, carrying concealed weapons in parks.. so now it will take deaths and going up to the Supremes to show this law as abhorrent as it is. What next for the nation? being able to carry concealed weapons in Bars I’m sure.
Currently no federal prohibition exists regarding the carrying of firearms in National Forests, thus only the laws of the individual states in which National Forest property lies can regulate such firearm possession. As some states do not regulate possession of firearms within National Forest lands, civilians are legally permitted to carry concealed deadly weapons into such locations, if they are in compliance with laws of the state regarding the carrying of concealed deadly weapons.
If concerns expressed regarding the carrying of deadly weapons on National Park lands are justified, then opponents to the removal of the current restriction should be able to demonstrate that incidents have occurred in National Forests due to individuals legally carrying firearms into such locations. Thus far, however, no opponent of the removal of extant restrictions has cited data from National Forests showing that such properties would benefit from a federal prohibition on the carrying of firearms. I am curious as to why no real world data has been referenced to justify their position.
@DonnyBrook I dunno if that is the best argument to use since we have thousands of laws on the books over 100 years old that should be replaced. Just a quick search I found that Maine still has a law on their books stating: “Shotguns are required to be taken to church in the event of a Native American attack”
“And what real world data do you provide to justify overturning a law which has been in effect for 100 years?”
The relevant policy of discussion has existed only for twenty-five years, thus I am uncertain of the law to which you refer. Moreover, the age of a given restriction of liberty is irrelevant and appealing to the age of a restriction in attempting to justify maintaining such a restriction is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. In a free society, those who seek to impose restrictions upon liberty bear the burden of justifying such restriction.
The argument becomes one of gun control vs. defenders of the 2nd Amendment. The latter state that people kill, not guns despite the numerous studies which show that guns do kill. Dimension states that the burden of justifying a restriction of guns is on the gun control advocate. The truth is there is no proof which these people will accept. But here is one which compares Seattle with Vancouver.
There are dozens of similar studies. The evidence is clear. The justification for gun control has been shown. You just won’t accept them. And common sense tells me that when I’m walking in a park with my wife and infant child, the only people I want carrying guns are the park rangers.
“Most homicides begin not with crimes but with arguments that turn ugly. With guns readily at hand, they are more likely to turn deadly as well.”
Um, @Dimensio I believe that is exactly what I was saying – using the age of a law for the argument would be pointless.
But if I could use your “those who seek to impose restrictions upon liberty bear the burden of justifying such restriction” as a segue to: that is a great argument for allowing gays to marry!!
“But if I could use your “those who seek to impose restrictions upon liberty bear the burden of justifying such restriction” as a segue to: that is a great argument for allowing gays to marry!!”
You are correct.
In fact, I have often observed a similarity amongst argument posited by advocates of civilian disarmament and arguments posited by opponents of the legal recognition of same-sex unions. Both collections of individuals predict dire consequences, such as increased incidents of violent crime or a “breakdown” of family structures and an increase in divorce rates, should an increase of liberty that they oppose, such as allowing non-criminal civilians to carry concealed deadly weapons or allowing same-sex couples legal recognition, be granted. Yet, when either liberty (or both) is granted, the predicted consequences fail to manifest in reality.
Given that both types of liberties have been granted in various locales, both collectives of opposed individuals should be able to cite real-world data if their expressed concerns are rational. Thus far, however, neither collective has chosen to do so. This has led me to believe that neither opponents of non-criminal civilians being permitted to carry concealed deadly weapons nor opponents of legal recognition of same-sex unions are able to rationally justify their opposition.
Then you should be able to reference studies showing that civilians legally permitted to carry concealed deadly weapons commit violent crimes at a rate significantly greater than does the populace as a whole. Please do so.
I believe in the right to carry a gun, I don’t have a dog in that fight. And I would believe in Concealed weapons if ONLY women were allowed that license – MEN are much too emotional to have guns – proof??….. How many men as apposed to women do you read about coming back to the bar locked and loaded to “finish” the fight? How many females in anger management groups compared to men? Take an aerial view of any riot and count the number of females out of control to the number of men. Who is usually at fault in domestic disputes – and why do they usually send female cops on these calls? How many brawling women do you see fist fighting over an accident or parking space?
I am sure you are perfectly responsible and mature enough to handle a gun wisely but WE can’t tell who the mature ones are at point of sale and definitely want more regulations. Either that or make testosterone illegal LOL
” And I would believe in Concealed weapons if ONLY women were allowed that license – MEN are much too emotional to have guns – proof??….”
I am certain, then, that you can demonstrate that male individuals who are issued permits to carry concealed deadly weapons commit violent crimes at a rate greater than that of the male adult populace as a whole. Please do so.
What? Are you paying attention? Can’t have stats BEFORE a law comes into effect over more than 2 states.
Currently conceal is licensed by the police and FBI after need can be demonstrated (I have a relative that transports valuable merchandise who told me the tight process he had to go through)
My “evidence” for male violence is Not based on “data” but as a collective observation hardly disputed by anyone paying attention Would you like to argue that males are less violent than females? For that I WOULD need stats!
“Currently conceal is licensed by the police and FBI after need can be demonstrated (I have a relative that transports valuable merchandise who told me the tight process he had to go through)”
Your assertion is factually incorrect.
Thirty-seven states in the United States issue permits to carry concealed deadly weapons on a “shall issue” basis; under such an issuance policy, an applying individual will be granted a permit to carry concealed deadly weapons by the state so long as no legal disqualification for permit issuance is applicable to the individual. Typically, the only disqualifying conditions, apart from age limitations, are the same conditions that would legally bar the individual from possessing a firearm under any circumstances; as such, the majority of states that issue concealed deadly weapons permits do so without assessing any “need” of an applicant.
Two states in the United States, Vermont and Alaska, do not in any way prohibit the possession of concealed deadly weapons; as such, any individual who is not legally prohibited from possessing a firearm may carry a firearm in a concealed fashion.
I have obtained a permit to carry concealed deadly weapons in the state of Kentucky. To obtain this permit, I was required to undergo a state-approved training course and to submit payment to the county Sheriff’s office; following a criminal background investigation to establish that I was not legally disqualified from receiving a permit, a permit was issued to me. I was not, at any time, required to demonstrate a “need” to carry concealed deadly weapons. The permit issued to me is recognized by an additional thirty-one states, thus I may carry a concealed deadly weapon in a total of thirty-four states (so long as I remain in accordance to the relevant state’s regulations regarding such carry) without having demonstrated any “need” to do so to any agency.
Such a permit system has existed in the state of Washington since 1961. The state of Florida instituted such a system in 1987, and more states adopted similar policies over subsequent years with a noticeable increase in states adopting such policies occurring in 1994 and in 1995. Such “shall issue” permit systems have thus been in place in more than half of the states in the United States for more than ten years. This should be sufficient time in which to derive statistics regarding violent crime rates amongst individuals to whom such permits have been issued.
A claim of a “collective observation” that is asserted to be “hardly disputed by anyone paying attention” is an anecdotal claim, and is not a statistically valid data set by which any viable assessment of policy may be determined.
[...] in family restaurants, guns in national parks and now one is denied the decency of enjoying a coffee at Starbucks without some jerk with issues [...]
Well, what started out in Tennessee is now a national concern, carrying concealed weapons in parks.. so now it will take deaths and going up to the Supremes to show this law as abhorrent as it is. What next for the nation? being able to carry concealed weapons in Bars I’m sure.
Currently no federal prohibition exists regarding the carrying of firearms in National Forests, thus only the laws of the individual states in which National Forest property lies can regulate such firearm possession. As some states do not regulate possession of firearms within National Forest lands, civilians are legally permitted to carry concealed deadly weapons into such locations, if they are in compliance with laws of the state regarding the carrying of concealed deadly weapons.
If concerns expressed regarding the carrying of deadly weapons on National Park lands are justified, then opponents to the removal of the current restriction should be able to demonstrate that incidents have occurred in National Forests due to individuals legally carrying firearms into such locations. Thus far, however, no opponent of the removal of extant restrictions has cited data from National Forests showing that such properties would benefit from a federal prohibition on the carrying of firearms. I am curious as to why no real world data has been referenced to justify their position.
And what real world data do you provide to justify overturning a law which has been in effect for 100 years?
@DonnyBrook I dunno if that is the best argument to use since we have thousands of laws on the books over 100 years old that should be replaced. Just a quick search I found that Maine still has a law on their books stating: “Shotguns are required to be taken to church in the event of a Native American attack”
“And what real world data do you provide to justify overturning a law which has been in effect for 100 years?”
The relevant policy of discussion has existed only for twenty-five years, thus I am uncertain of the law to which you refer. Moreover, the age of a given restriction of liberty is irrelevant and appealing to the age of a restriction in attempting to justify maintaining such a restriction is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. In a free society, those who seek to impose restrictions upon liberty bear the burden of justifying such restriction.
The argument becomes one of gun control vs. defenders of the 2nd Amendment. The latter state that people kill, not guns despite the numerous studies which show that guns do kill. Dimension states that the burden of justifying a restriction of guns is on the gun control advocate. The truth is there is no proof which these people will accept. But here is one which compares Seattle with Vancouver.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/18/opinion/guns-do-kill-people.html?pagewanted=1
There are dozens of similar studies. The evidence is clear. The justification for gun control has been shown. You just won’t accept them. And common sense tells me that when I’m walking in a park with my wife and infant child, the only people I want carrying guns are the park rangers.
“Most homicides begin not with crimes but with arguments that turn ugly. With guns readily at hand, they are more likely to turn deadly as well.”
Um, @Dimensio I believe that is exactly what I was saying – using the age of a law for the argument would be pointless.
But if I could use your “those who seek to impose restrictions upon liberty bear the burden of justifying such restriction” as a segue to: that is a great argument for allowing gays to marry!!
“But if I could use your “those who seek to impose restrictions upon liberty bear the burden of justifying such restriction” as a segue to: that is a great argument for allowing gays to marry!!”
You are correct.
In fact, I have often observed a similarity amongst argument posited by advocates of civilian disarmament and arguments posited by opponents of the legal recognition of same-sex unions. Both collections of individuals predict dire consequences, such as increased incidents of violent crime or a “breakdown” of family structures and an increase in divorce rates, should an increase of liberty that they oppose, such as allowing non-criminal civilians to carry concealed deadly weapons or allowing same-sex couples legal recognition, be granted. Yet, when either liberty (or both) is granted, the predicted consequences fail to manifest in reality.
Given that both types of liberties have been granted in various locales, both collectives of opposed individuals should be able to cite real-world data if their expressed concerns are rational. Thus far, however, neither collective has chosen to do so. This has led me to believe that neither opponents of non-criminal civilians being permitted to carry concealed deadly weapons nor opponents of legal recognition of same-sex unions are able to rationally justify their opposition.
“There are dozens of similar studies. ”
Then you should be able to reference studies showing that civilians legally permitted to carry concealed deadly weapons commit violent crimes at a rate significantly greater than does the populace as a whole. Please do so.
I already did.
“I already did.”
The study that you referenced did not address in any way statistics regarding individuals who are legally permitted to carry concealed deadly weapons.
I believe in the right to carry a gun, I don’t have a dog in that fight. And I would believe in Concealed weapons if ONLY women were allowed that license – MEN are much too emotional to have guns – proof??….. How many men as apposed to women do you read about coming back to the bar locked and loaded to “finish” the fight? How many females in anger management groups compared to men? Take an aerial view of any riot and count the number of females out of control to the number of men. Who is usually at fault in domestic disputes – and why do they usually send female cops on these calls? How many brawling women do you see fist fighting over an accident or parking space?
I am sure you are perfectly responsible and mature enough to handle a gun wisely but WE can’t tell who the mature ones are at point of sale and definitely want more regulations. Either that or make testosterone illegal LOL
” And I would believe in Concealed weapons if ONLY women were allowed that license – MEN are much too emotional to have guns – proof??….”
I am certain, then, that you can demonstrate that male individuals who are issued permits to carry concealed deadly weapons commit violent crimes at a rate greater than that of the male adult populace as a whole. Please do so.
What? Are you paying attention? Can’t have stats BEFORE a law comes into effect over more than 2 states.
Currently conceal is licensed by the police and FBI after need can be demonstrated (I have a relative that transports valuable merchandise who told me the tight process he had to go through)
My “evidence” for male violence is Not based on “data” but as a collective observation hardly disputed by anyone paying attention Would you like to argue that males are less violent than females? For that I WOULD need stats!
“Currently conceal is licensed by the police and FBI after need can be demonstrated (I have a relative that transports valuable merchandise who told me the tight process he had to go through)”
Your assertion is factually incorrect.
Thirty-seven states in the United States issue permits to carry concealed deadly weapons on a “shall issue” basis; under such an issuance policy, an applying individual will be granted a permit to carry concealed deadly weapons by the state so long as no legal disqualification for permit issuance is applicable to the individual. Typically, the only disqualifying conditions, apart from age limitations, are the same conditions that would legally bar the individual from possessing a firearm under any circumstances; as such, the majority of states that issue concealed deadly weapons permits do so without assessing any “need” of an applicant.
Two states in the United States, Vermont and Alaska, do not in any way prohibit the possession of concealed deadly weapons; as such, any individual who is not legally prohibited from possessing a firearm may carry a firearm in a concealed fashion.
I have obtained a permit to carry concealed deadly weapons in the state of Kentucky. To obtain this permit, I was required to undergo a state-approved training course and to submit payment to the county Sheriff’s office; following a criminal background investigation to establish that I was not legally disqualified from receiving a permit, a permit was issued to me. I was not, at any time, required to demonstrate a “need” to carry concealed deadly weapons. The permit issued to me is recognized by an additional thirty-one states, thus I may carry a concealed deadly weapon in a total of thirty-four states (so long as I remain in accordance to the relevant state’s regulations regarding such carry) without having demonstrated any “need” to do so to any agency.
Such a permit system has existed in the state of Washington since 1961. The state of Florida instituted such a system in 1987, and more states adopted similar policies over subsequent years with a noticeable increase in states adopting such policies occurring in 1994 and in 1995. Such “shall issue” permit systems have thus been in place in more than half of the states in the United States for more than ten years. This should be sufficient time in which to derive statistics regarding violent crime rates amongst individuals to whom such permits have been issued.
A claim of a “collective observation” that is asserted to be “hardly disputed by anyone paying attention” is an anecdotal claim, and is not a statistically valid data set by which any viable assessment of policy may be determined.