First time visitor? Learn more.

Al Gore – a heartless, greedy boss, as well as a massive hypocrite

by Speranza ( 169 Comments › )
Filed under Media at January 9th, 2013 - 11:30 am

For some reason I am not surprised to read that as a boss, Al Gore is the pits! Gee when you’ve lost Jennifer Granholm, you have lost the cream of the crop. //

What are the odds that Keith Olbermann makes a come back? By the way call your cable company and tell them not to pick up Al-Jazeera.

by Linda Stasi

Just call him Al Gorezeera.

Yesterday morning, the still shell shocked staff at Current TV was called to an all hands staff meeting at its San Francisco headquarters, which was teleconferenced to their offices in LA and NYC, to meet their new bosses.

That would be two of Al Jazeera’s top guys: Ehab Al Shihabi, executive director of international operations, and Muftah AlSuwaidan, general manager of the London bureau.

Ominously missing was the creator of Current, the self proclaimed inventor of the Internet and savior of clean energy, Al Gore, although his partner, Joel Hyatt, stood proudly with the Al Jazeera honchos.

“Of course Al didn’t show up,” said one high placed Current staffer. “He has no credibility.

“He’s supposed to be the face of clean energy and just sold [the channel] to very big oil, the emir of Qatar! Current never even took big oil advertising—and Al Gore, that bulls***ter sells to the emir?”

[........]

The mostly left-leaning group—some still in denial —weren’t buying what Al Jazeera was selling.

And what are they selling? Al Jazeera’s image of —are you ready?— “inform, inspire and entertain!”

The “new” American Al Jazeera will, according to Shihabi, appeal to the American audience with a mixture of national and international news—and, of course, entertainment.

But you won’t be getting that Middle East merriment until April, which is when the network says it will be ready to take over.

[......]

One person at the meeting, who has already announced that she’s leaving, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, tried to ask about severance packages for those who wouldn’t be staying.

“This isn’t the place to discuss this!” Hyatt barked at her.

“After that, everyone kept their questions pretty much to themselves,” according to the staff member.

How do they feel about Gore the savior of green energy now?

The displeasure with Gore among the staff was thick enough to cut with a scimitar.

“We all know now that Al Gore is nothing but a bulls***ter,” said the staffer bluntly.

We do stories on the tax code, and he sells the network before the tax code kicked in?

“Al was always lecturing us about green. He kept his word about green all right—as in cold, hard cash!”

Read the rest – Current situation: Staffers talk about first meeting with Al Jazeera

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

169 Responses to “Al Gore – a heartless, greedy boss, as well as a massive hypocrite”
( jump to bottom )

  1. lobo91
    1 | January 9, 2013 11:33 am

    Time-Warner has already said that they’re not going to carry them. Hopefully, Dish will do the same.


  2. 2 | January 9, 2013 11:35 am

    @ lobo91:

    We already have Pro-Jiahd propagandists in the media. We do not need more.


  3. eaglesoars
    3 | January 9, 2013 11:38 am

    By the way call your cable company and tell them not to pick up Al-Jazeera.

    Speranza, I respectfully disagree. I WANT to see what the enemy is doing.


  4. buzzsawmonkey
    4 | January 9, 2013 11:39 am

    Al Gore is Charles Johnson with a slightly better haircut and a lot more money.


  5. 5 | January 9, 2013 11:39 am

    Chris Christie getting media love.


  6. 6 | January 9, 2013 11:40 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    By the way call your cable company and tell them not to pick up Al-Jazeera.
    Speranza, I respectfully disagree. I WANT to see what the enemy is doing.

    GMTA.

    I watch Leftist and Islamic propaganda to understand their mindset. In order to defeat your enemy, you must study your enemy.


  7. theoutsider
    7 | January 9, 2013 11:43 am

    @ Rodan:
    Christie is almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee in 2016. How are yo guys going to deal with that?


  8. eaglesoars
    8 | January 9, 2013 11:48 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    2016.

    That’s WAY too far away for any serious speculation. IMO


  9. 9 | January 9, 2013 11:50 am

    “We all know now that Al Gore is nothing but a bulls***ter,” said the staffer bluntly.

    I already knew that, but then again I am not dumb enough to be a Leftist. Being a Leftist means lying to yourself most of all. They’ve always excused Gore’s private jet lifestyle, multiple mansions, and so forth. Al Gore has never acted as though he believed what he was sputing, so why are they surprised? Global Warming was just the snake-oil he was selling to get a payday. Now Al Jazeera has ponied up the bucks, and Gore sold out to them without a qualm. Why should he care? He’s pumped and dumped Global Warming for all it was worth. The truth about the Global Warming Hoax is out, o and the only deniers in the room are the fools that still cling to it.


  10. theoutsider
    10 | January 9, 2013 11:52 am

    @ eaglesoars:
    It is, but Christie wants to be the forerunner.


  11. 11 | January 9, 2013 11:52 am

    @ theoutsider:

    That’s OK. Joe the Biden is going to be the Democrat nominee. How are you going to deal with that? And while we are talking about how you deal with things, how are you going to deal with the coming Entitlement Cliff? What is your proposed solution for the time when Social Security, Mediare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt is 80-90% of tax revenue?


  12. buzzsawmonkey
    12 | January 9, 2013 11:52 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    Christie may well weigh 2016 in three years.


  13. lobo91
    13 | January 9, 2013 11:53 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Christie is almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee in 2016. How are yo guys going to deal with that?

    I hadn’t heard about the plan to eliminate the 2016 primaries.

    Christie doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination otherwise. Republican primary voters aren’t going to vote for an anti-gun candidate.


  14. buzzsawmonkey
    14 | January 9, 2013 11:53 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    Christie wants to be the forerunner.

    Not possible; his legs barely support him now.


  15. 15 | January 9, 2013 11:55 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Christie is almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee in 2016. How are yo guys going to deal with that?

    Many Republicans will vote Libertarian then.


  16. lobo91
    16 | January 9, 2013 11:56 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ theoutsider:

    That’s OK. Joe the Biden is going to be the Democrat nominee. How are you going to deal with that? And while we are talking about how you deal with things, how are you going to deal with the coming Entitlement Cliff? What is your proposed solution for the time when Social Security, Mediare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt is 80-90% of tax revenue?

    What entitlement cliff? Dennis Kucinich was just on TV insisting that Social Security is perfectly fine.

    Of course, he also believes that he’s been abducted by space aliens, so you can take that for what it’s worth…


  17. 17 | January 9, 2013 11:57 am

    @ lobo91:

    Actually there is a way. Rubio and Rand Paul go after each other on foreign policy. They split Conservatives and Christie gets the Progressive Republicans. That’s a way Christie could get the nomination. But the result would be many Republicans will not vote in the general.

    Deval Patrick would wipe the floor with Christie.


  18. lobo91
    18 | January 9, 2013 11:57 am

    Rodan wrote:

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Christie is almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee in 2016. How are yo guys going to deal with that?

    Many Republicans will vote Libertarian then.

    Unless a whole bunch of states switch over to California-style open primaries, I don’t think it’s a real concern.


  19. 19 | January 9, 2013 11:58 am

    @ lobo91:

    Yes I remember that. I’m sure it was Farrakhan’s mother wheel!


  20. theoutsider
    20 | January 9, 2013 12:00 pm

    @ Rodan:
    If he’s the 2016 nominee running against Hillary Clinton? You’re voting libertarian in Florida?


  21. 21 | January 9, 2013 12:00 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Well, as long as Kucinich says so, everything it all right… :roll:


  22. 22 | January 9, 2013 12:01 pm

    @ theoutsider:

    Deval Patrick will be your nominee in 2016. Either way you guys will win in 2016 and probably 2020. You have the Media-Entertainment Industrial Complex and a dysfunctional GOP.

    I really do not get why you Progressives are still so bitter. Everything is going your way and we are practically a One Party Country at this pint. This is the Left’s golden age, you should be happy.


  23. lobo91
    23 | January 9, 2013 12:01 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ lobo91:

    Well, as long as Kucinich says so, everything it all right…

    That is the standard line on the left, though. I’m sure our resident troll would agree with him.


  24. lobo91
    24 | January 9, 2013 12:02 pm

    @ Rodan:

    If that happens, it won’t matter who runs in 2020. The US will no longer exist in any recognizable form.


  25. lobo91
    25 | January 9, 2013 12:04 pm

    So, Biden and company are meeting with “gun safety groups” today.

    But there’s nobody there from the NRA, which is the largest gun safety group in America.


  26. 26 | January 9, 2013 12:06 pm

    @ lobo91:

    I don’t think that is going to happen in any event. It is just a question of what gets us first: Iranian nukes or fiscal irresponsibility or a civil war over guns. Obama’s hard at work on ll three fronts, not to mention the rest of his foreign policy. More than anything, I think Obama wants to be the last President of the United States. Lincoln said something to the effect that he wasn’t elected to oversee the dismantelment of the United States. Obama would like nothing better.


  27. 27 | January 9, 2013 12:07 pm

    @ lobo91:

    You and I know it will be probably be Deval Patrick for the Dems in 2016. Why ruin a winning formula.


  28. buzzsawmonkey
    28 | January 9, 2013 12:07 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    So, Biden and company are meeting with “gun safety groups” today.

    But there’s nobody there from the NRA, which is the largest gun safety group in America.

    Apparently, according to WZ, Wal-Mart has been armtwisted into going to kneel before the Gun Grab God.


  29. 29 | January 9, 2013 12:08 pm

    @ lobo91:

    That is the standard line on the left, though. I’m sure our resident troll would agree with him.

    He’s awaiting OFA talking points on that matter.


  30. citizen_q
    30 | January 9, 2013 12:09 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    So, Biden and company are meeting with “gun safety groups” today.
    But there’s nobody there from the NRA, which is the largest gun safety group in America.

    I don’t put much stock on any of these meetings. I believe they are all for show. Their plans have long been drawn up waiting for an event significant enough to fully exploit.

    My expectation is that they will cherry pick supportive sound bites, or if they are very lucky they will gain a weapon from the NRA if there are any misstatements or something else that may be twisted for effect.


  31. 31 | January 9, 2013 12:11 pm

    @ citizen_q:

    Nothing will get through the COngress. Biden’s mission is to craft something so radical, I doubt he can even get it through the Senate. The question is, how much of it does he try to do by Executive Order, and what do the Courts do with that. Unless it comes to a shooting war before the Courts have time to rule on it.


  32. theoutsider
    32 | January 9, 2013 12:13 pm

    @ Rodan:
    Deval Patrick? I really don’t see that happening. If Hillary doesn’t run, I predict Cuomo.


  33. citizen_q
    33 | January 9, 2013 12:13 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    I hope you are right, but I take nothing sane or reasonable for granted any more.


  34. lobo91
    34 | January 9, 2013 12:14 pm

    @ citizen_q:

    I don’t put much stock on any of these meetings. I believe they are all for show. Their plans have long been drawn up waiting for an event significant enough to fully exploit.

    We’ve already seen what Feinstein plans to introduce on the 22nd. It’s pretty hard to imagine anything more radical than that, short of a UK-style confiscation scheme.


  35. 35 | January 9, 2013 12:16 pm

    @ theoutsider:

    Cuomo has called for gun confiscation in the United States. I can only hope that the Democrats run as honest a Democrat as that. I know Obama wants to go there, too. He may try it by Executive Order. We’ll see. That’ll be the most divisive issue in the United States since slavery.


  36. Speranza
    36 | January 9, 2013 12:17 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Time-Warner has already said that they’re not going to carry them. Hopefully, Dish will do the same.

    And hopefully RCN too.


  37. 37 | January 9, 2013 12:17 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    short of a UK-style confiscation scheme

    That starts a civil war.


  38. lobo91
    38 | January 9, 2013 12:18 pm

    MSNBC Guest Calls Children Killed In Newtown “20 Little Martyrs” For Libs Anti-Gun Effort…

    Patricia Maisch, one of the people who helped disarm Jared Lee Loughner after his 2011 shooting spree in Tucson, Arizona, appeared on MSNBC on Tuesday to mark the two year anniversary of that tragic attack. She twice told MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts, were it not for the “20 little martyrs” who died in the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School, new legal restrictions on gun ownership may never have materialized.


  39. Speranza
    39 | January 9, 2013 12:18 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    By the way call your cable company and tell them not to pick up Al-Jazeera.
    Speranza, I respectfully disagree. I WANT to see what the enemy is doing.

    Nope I know what the enemy is thinking and there are too many low information people out there easily influenced. Thanks but no thanks.


  40. lobo91
    40 | January 9, 2013 12:20 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:

    short of a UK-style confiscation scheme

    That starts a civil war.

    Not that they could actually accomplish such a thing, anyway.

    It’s funny how the same people who tell us that it would be impossible to round up 30 million illegal aliens think that they could round up 300 million guns.


  41. RIX
    41 | January 9, 2013 12:20 pm

    @ lobo91:
    It sounds like Chris Matthews being grateful for Hurricane Sandy,
    electing Obama.


  42. Speranza
    42 | January 9, 2013 12:20 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ theoutsider:
    Deval Patrick will be your nominee in 2016. Either way you guys will win in 2016 and probably 2020. You have the Media-Entertainment Industrial Complex and a dysfunctional GOP.
    I really do not get why you Progressives are still so bitter. Everything is going your way and we are practically a One Party Country at this pint. This is the Left’s golden age, you should be happy.

    Deval Patrick or Martin O’Malley.


  43. buzzsawmonkey
    43 | January 9, 2013 12:21 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    there are too many low information people out there easily influenced.

    True. My mother takes all sorts of crap from places like the Southern Poverty Law Center and J-Street at face value.


  44. AZfederalist
    44 | January 9, 2013 12:21 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ theoutsider:

    That’ll be the most divisive issue in the United States since slavery.

    And the civil war this ignites will not turn out the same. This will split the country. As proof, look at the spike in already record gun sales. Almost half the country saw Jugears for what he is, he has no clear mandate despite his delusions and the sycophantic MSM.


  45. buzzsawmonkey
    45 | January 9, 2013 12:22 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    It’s funny how the same people who tell us that it would be impossible to round up 30 million illegal aliens think that they could round up 300 million guns.

    The illegals don’t have driver’s licenses. The guns do have licenses…


  46. theoutsider
    46 | January 9, 2013 12:23 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee and the eventual winner, so who cares about Cuomo anyway?


  47. citizen_q
    47 | January 9, 2013 12:23 pm

    @ lobo91:
    Everything I have seen from our “benevolent totalitarians” are increasingly outlandish proposals.

    Some I think are simply attention ploys.

    Feinswine is serious. I have read about some of here proposed infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights, and they are as draconian as they will do nothing to address the known factors in the Newtown tragedy.


  48. lobo91
    48 | January 9, 2013 12:24 pm

    Harry Reid Adviser: Dingy “In A Different Place” On Gun Control…

    A staunch supporter of gun rights for years, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may be changing his position on the contentious issue in the aftermath of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

    The nation’s top Democrat in Congress has faced scrutiny in recent weeks for his close ties with the National Rifle Association. On December 30, the Washington Post reported that Reid slipped a provision into the 2010 national health care law that restricts the government from collecting data on gun ownership.

    A Democratic source close to the passage of the landmark legislation said the last-minute provision was aimed at avoiding any opposition from the NRA that could have scuttled the entire bill.

    “This is what was viewed as a relatively benign way to make sure the NRA didn’t get involved with this,” the Democratic source told CNN.

    However an adviser to Reid, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Reid’s feelings on gun control have changed since President Barack Obama signed health care reform into law.

    “He’s in a different place than he was in 2010,” the adviser told CNN.


  49. eaglesoars
    49 | January 9, 2013 12:26 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    too many low information people out there easily influenced.

    I take your point.


  50. 50 | January 9, 2013 12:26 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    The guns do have licenses…

    Not most of them. Only in places like New York City are guns really licensed. Most of the country doesn’t have gun registration. I expect Obama to try and “correct” that. I expect civil disobediance to his unconstitutional EOs will be massive. But you do point out why we must oppose registration. The only purpose to gun registration is eventual confiscation.


  51. buzzsawmonkey
    51 | January 9, 2013 12:26 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    On December 30, the Washington Post reported that Reid slipped a provision into the 2010 national health care law that restricts the government from collecting data on gun ownership.

    I call bullshit on this. We’re increasingly hearing that under Obamacare implementations doctors are routinely questioning patients as to whether or not there are any guns in the house—as a “public health and safety” measure.


  52. lobo91
    52 | January 9, 2013 12:28 pm

    @ citizen_q:

    Feinswine is serious. I have read about some of here proposed infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights, and they are as draconian as they will do nothing to address the known factors in the Newtown tragedy.

    Among other things, she basically wants to redefine most semi-auto rifles as “machine guns” and regulate them as such. You’d have to go through the same process to be allowed to keep your AR-15 that someone does in order to buy an actual automatic weapon today.

    On top of that, she would make it illegal to sell them (or even give them) to anyone, and when the current owner dies, the guns would have to be turned over to the feds for disposal.

    It’s insane.


  53. eaglesoars
    53 | January 9, 2013 12:30 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    when the current owner dies, the guns would have to be turned over to the feds for disposal.

    confiscation by attrition.


  54. lobo91
    54 | January 9, 2013 12:30 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    A “national gun database” is one of the things the White House has been talking about.


  55. lobo91
    55 | January 9, 2013 12:30 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:

    when the current owner dies, the guns would have to be turned over to the feds for disposal.

    confiscation by attrition.

    Exactly.


  56. buzzsawmonkey
    56 | January 9, 2013 12:31 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Among other things, she basically wants to redefine most semi-auto rifles as “machine guns” and regulate them as such. You’d have to go through the same process to be allowed to keep your AR-15 that someone does in order to buy an actual automatic weapon today.

    I know little about guns—certainly when compared to some folks here. But even I understand that “semi-automatic” is not the same as a machine gun.

    However, as I listen to leftist media personalities opining on this issue, it is quite clear to me that many of them do not understand this difference—or, if they do, they are intentionally obscuring and blurring it in order to ramp up public hysteria and misinformation. Primarily the former, I think—but too many cases of the latter.

    One of the things I think it is essential for people to do is correct this spreading misinformation any time or place they can.


  57. Lily
    57 | January 9, 2013 12:31 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    theoutsider wrote:
    2016.
    That’s WAY too far away for any serious speculation. IMO

    Agree and I certainly don’t see Chris Christie out there. Just my humble opinion.


  58. 58 | January 9, 2013 12:32 pm

    @ lobo91:

    It’ll never get through the Senate, let alone the House, but it is instructive of where they want to go. Despite two very clear decisions from the Supreme Court that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right, these people want to trample all over it. There is no real difference between them and the hard-core “Segregation Forever” crowd. Said crowd who were, not coincidentally, all Democrats.


  59. Lily
    59 | January 9, 2013 12:33 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ theoutsider:
    That’s OK. Joe the Biden is going to be the Democrat nominee. How are you going to deal with that? And while we are talking about how you deal with things, how are you going to deal with the coming Entitlement Cliff? What is your proposed solution for the time when Social Security, Mediare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt is 80-90% of tax revenue?

    Oh my! IF that is a complicatied question to ask the outsider there.
    I haven’t read through the thread but I will be surprised if you get an answer.


  60. Speranza
    60 | January 9, 2013 12:34 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    too many low information people out there easily influenced.

    I take your point.

    They will come away thinking that Israel is the biggest threat to world peace -- see the U.K. for the results of years of BBC anti-Israel propaganda.


  61. 61 | January 9, 2013 12:35 pm

    @ lobo91:

    So that the “Journalists” can complie a list of all the gun owners in America for liquidation publication. Like I said, massive civil disobediance. It’ll kill the gun industry in th eUnited States, though, which may be thier main goal. Even Colt doesn’t make enough just through police and military sales to stay in business, at least not on the scale that they are today. IIRC< Colt is actually in some financial trouble as it is, though that may have changed with the spike in gun sales over the past few years.


  62. taxfreekiller
    62 | January 9, 2013 12:35 pm

    Gore to fat by 300%.

    Love this notice:

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/09/ipcc-legal-notice/

    Gore’s cult got their nickers in a bind seems.

    An IT person did the searchable deal on the IPCC AR5 report it is up at http://www.wattsupwtiththat.com

    Got their nuts in a vise now,,,, squeeze and do not let up.


  63. Speranza
    63 | January 9, 2013 12:35 pm

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee and the eventual winner, so who cares about Cuomo anyway?

    She looks like shit and is past her prime and past her time.


  64. 64 | January 9, 2013 12:36 pm

    @ Lily:

    I didn’t. It wasn’t in the Outsider’s talking points, so he doesn’t know how to answer the question.


  65. lobo91
    65 | January 9, 2013 12:36 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I know little about guns—certainly when compared to some folks here. But even I understand that “semi-automatic” is not the same as a machine gun.

    Feinstein knows the difference. That’s why she wants to legislate a new definition for the term, in order to allow the ATF to regulate them.

    DC did the same thing after the first Heller decision. They tried to define any semi-automatic pistol as being a “machine gun,” so that they could continue to ban them.


  66. Lily
    66 | January 9, 2013 12:36 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    You and I know it will be probably be Deval Patrick for the Dems in 2016. Why ruin a winning formula.

    I kinda of agree with you there. I would be surprised if it isn’t Deval Patrick. I honestly don’t think Hillary will have the energy for it after working for obama the past 4 years she looks like hell.


  67. 67 | January 9, 2013 12:37 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    The guns do have licenses…

    Not most of them. Only in places like New York City are guns really licensed. Most of the country doesn’t have gun registration. I expect Obama to try and “correct” that. I expect civil disobediance to his unconstitutional EOs will be massive. But you do point out why we must oppose registration. The only purpose to gun registration is eventual confiscation.

    In Kentucky, we have zero registration, though I seem to remember completing some manner of form when I bought my .45…..but that was back in the 80s and I don’t really remember. It may have been Louisville as I can’t imagine such a thing in a place like Kentucky.


  68. Lily
    68 | January 9, 2013 12:37 pm

    citizen_q wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    I hope you are right, but I take nothing sane or reasonable for granted any more.

    Critical thinking has grown wings and flown out the window lately now hasn’t it?


  69. taxfreekiller
    69 | January 9, 2013 12:38 pm

    http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

    sorry@ taxfreekiller:


  70. citizen_q
    70 | January 9, 2013 12:39 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    It’s insane.

    Agreed, we live in insane times.


  71. Lily
    71 | January 9, 2013 12:40 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    eaglesoars wrote:
    By the way call your cable company and tell them not to pick up Al-Jazeera.
    Speranza, I respectfully disagree. I WANT to see what the enemy is doing.
    Nope I know what the enemy is thinking and there are too many low information people out there easily influenced. Thanks but no thanks.

    Well yeah you could make a case that there are waaaaaaaay too many people ignorant of what and who Al-Jazeera is all about. And Gore is a greedy SOB just selling to them too.


  72. eaglesoars
    72 | January 9, 2013 12:40 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    it is quite clear to me that many of them do not understand this difference

    The other day WaPo had an article speculation that there would be a ban on high capacity ammunition.

    It was the SECOND time I’d read that term, the first being in the NYT.

    That this made it to print tells me that A. There’s so much group-think that no one ‘saw’ it mentally or B. They think we’re stupid.


  73. lobo91
    73 | January 9, 2013 12:41 pm

    This whole debate is ridiculous, anyway.

    Mass shootings account for approximately 1/10th of 1 percent of firearms-related homicides, yet they want to radically change gun ownership in America based on them.

    At the same time, 50% of the perpetrators of such crimes have had documented mental illness (and most of the other 50% probably had similar, but undocumented, issues) yet the left will absolutely refuse to allow mental health information to be used in the background check process.


  74. buzzsawmonkey
    74 | January 9, 2013 12:41 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Despite two very clear decisions from the Supreme Court that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right, these people want to trample all over it.

    Not “despite.” Because of.


  75. 75 | January 9, 2013 12:42 pm

    Lily wrote:

    I kinda of agree with you there. I would be surprised if it isn’t Deval Patrick. I honestly don’t think Hillary will have the energy for it after working for obama the past 4 years she looks like hell.

    Doesn’t she look awful? As my mother used to say, “she looks like she’s been ridden hard and put up wet”

    (Before the gag reflex kicks in, it’s an equestrian term) :D


  76. Lily
    76 | January 9, 2013 12:42 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    there are too many low information people out there easily influenced.
    True. My mother takes all sorts of crap from places like the Southern Poverty Law Center and J-Street at face value.

    Too many people do these days. I can bet that each of us knows at least 1 to 9 people who believe the propaganda and ignorance.


  77. lobo91
    77 | January 9, 2013 12:43 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    In Kentucky, we have zero registration, though I seem to remember completing some manner of form when I bought my .45…..but that was back in the 80s and I don’t really remember. It may have been Louisville as I can’t imagine such a thing in a place like Kentucky.

    You filled out an ATF form 4473, which has been required for all retail handgun sales since 1968. Since 1994, they’ve been required for all retail gun sales.

    The form itself is maintained by the dealer in hard copy form. They aren’t sent to anyone.


  78. citizen_q
    78 | January 9, 2013 12:44 pm

    Lily wrote:

    citizen_q wrote:
    @ Iron Fist:
    I hope you are right, but I take nothing sane or reasonable for granted any more.
    Critical thinking has grown wings and flown out the window lately now hasn’t it?

    Descended into group think, spoon-fed talking points, and shouting louder then the other person.


  79. Lily
    79 | January 9, 2013 12:44 pm

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee and the eventual winner, so who cares about Cuomo anyway?

    Very, very, very doubtful. But of course wish in one hand and ____ in another and she what fills up first. I just don’t see it happening. But I can always be surprised.


  80. 80 | January 9, 2013 12:45 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    You probably filled out a Form 4473. That is required for new gun purchases, but it isn’t required for person to person sales. A lot of the guns bought on 4473s have been resold over the years. It is against Federal law to actually make a database of the 4473s, too, but I would expect the Obama Administration to have few qualms about violating Federal Law.


  81. Lily
    81 | January 9, 2013 12:46 pm

    @ lobo91:

    It’s insane.

    It’s what’s for dinner these days. Insanity.


  82. lobo91
    82 | January 9, 2013 12:46 pm

    Here We Go: Biden Says Obama Could Use Executive Orders To Enact Gun Control…

    Vice President Joe Biden indicated Wednesday that the president will be able to take executive action to combat gun violence as he kicked off one of several meetings this week in response to the Newtown shooting.

    “We’re here today to deal with a problem that requires immediate action, urgent action,” Biden said at the start of a meeting with leaders from gun control groups and several victims of gun violence.

    “The president is going to act. There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all … as well as legislative action, we believe, is required,” he said.


  83. buzzsawmonkey
    83 | January 9, 2013 12:46 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    That this made it to print tells me that A. There’s so much group-think that no one ‘saw’ it mentally or B. They think we’re stupid.

    Stop! You’re both right! Candy mint and breath mint:

    A) They don’t know the terminology. Journalists often write grossly ignorant articles which they are too lazy to research, or too ignorant to even know that they’ve got the facts and terminology wrong. There’s probably nobody in the newsroom with the knowledge to get it right—and if there is, that person will keep quiet for reasons of ideology and/or job security.

    B) They do think they people they write for are stupid—after all, the customers read what they write, don’t they?

    C) They don’t give a damn. It’s not the facts, ma’am—it’s the narrative. Scare the rubes and keep ‘em stirred up so they can be stampeded where we want ‘em to go.


  84. Lily
    84 | January 9, 2013 12:48 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Lily:
    I didn’t. It wasn’t in the Outsider’s talking points, so he doesn’t know how to answer the question.

    Finally read through the whole thread and noticed you didn’t get an answer. He/she just throws out bombs and waits for us to react.


  85. 85 | January 9, 2013 12:49 pm

    @ lobo91:

    They don’t care about the crime. They care about taking people’s guns away from them. They’ve been waiting on something like this so that they could do this. If it hadn’t been here, it would have been somewhere else, even if they had to manufacture the incident a la Fast & Furious. They hoped that they could use the emotion of the moment to overwhelm people’s better sense. What they got was a record spike in gun sales. Those people aren’t buying those guns to just turn them over when Jugears says the Constitution is just a scrap of paper…


  86. citizen_q
    86 | January 9, 2013 12:49 pm

    @ lobo91:
    There are temrs bite-me biden should be using in there somewhere; dictator and dictatorial powers.


  87. lobo91
    87 | January 9, 2013 12:50 pm

    Biden: Passing Gun Control A “Moral Issue”…

    Vice President Joe Biden described his gun control effort as a “moral issue” when meeting with gun safety advocates and mass shooting victims on Wednesday morning.

    “When I think of all the tragedies that we have endured, I don’t think anything has touched the heart of the American people so profoundly as seeing those and learning of those young children not only being shot but riddled with bullets,” he said, referring to the December 14 shooting at the elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

    It if wasn’t so sad, the idea of a Democrat trying to invoke “morality” as justification for their schemes would be hilarious.


  88. lobo91
    88 | January 9, 2013 12:51 pm

    @ Lily:

    Finally read through the whole thread and noticed you didn’t get an answer. He/she just throws out bombs and waits for us to react.

    This is a day ending in “y,” after all…


  89. Lily
    89 | January 9, 2013 12:51 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    This whole debate is ridiculous, anyway.
    Mass shootings account for approximately 1/10th of 1 percent of firearms-related homicides, yet they want to radically change gun ownership in America based on them.
    At the same time, 50% of the perpetrators of such crimes have had documented mental illness (and most of the other 50% probably had similar, but undocumented, issues) yet the left will absolutely refuse to allow mental health information to be used in the background check process.

    You are correct. Mass shootings are a rare animal and when they do happen they are over exposed by the media. Even if guns were outlawed then another weapon would have been used. These people who do this have mental issues. So we will outlaw shovels, bats or bow and arrows?


  90. 90 | January 9, 2013 12:53 pm

    @ lobo91:
    @ Iron Fist:

    Thanks for clearing that up!


  91. Lily
    91 | January 9, 2013 12:54 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    I kinda of agree with you there. I would be surprised if it isn’t Deval Patrick. I honestly don’t think Hillary will have the energy for it after working for obama the past 4 years she looks like hell.
    Doesn’t she look awful? As my mother used to say, “she looks like she’s been ridden hard and put up wet”
    (Before the gag reflex kicks in, it’s an equestrian term)

    MacDuff I use the same type description. Working with the obama administration has done a number on her. BIG TIME! I honestly don’t see her running for president in 2016. She should have never gotten in bed with the obama administration if she wanted to be president. Her mistake and she is paying for it.


  92. lobo91
    92 | January 9, 2013 12:55 pm

    @ Lily:

    You are correct. Mass shootings are a rare animal and when they do happen they are over exposed by the media. Even if guns were outlawed then another weapon would have been used. These people who do this have mental issues. So we will outlaw shovels, bats or bow and arrows?

    And rocks…sticks…2x4s…rope…


  93. 93 | January 9, 2013 12:55 pm

    @ lobo91:

    And that is the real thing that I am worried about. There are 14 Democrat Senators up for re-election in 2014, and I am sure that the NRA will make sure that they remeber the Class of 1994, and how that went the last time the Senate passed a gun control law. I am not really worried about the legislature. I am worried about what Obama will do by Executive fiat. We’ve already seen that he neither understands the Constitution nor particularly Cares about it. He’ll violate the Secnd Amendment and dare the Roberts Court to say anything about it. The real question is does he care about the future of those 14 Senators? I honestly don’t know, but I suspect not.


  94. taxfreekiller
    94 | January 9, 2013 12:55 pm

    Mr Outside Outhouse,

    Has it hit your brain steam yet that the AGW shit is pure con.
    Has it hit you brain steam yet Gore etal, Mann etal have picked your pockets as well as all others and your paying for the con.

    Gore runs in investment firm, he sells to marks, you have the mark on you.

    Example is the MET , the bosses at the MET have all the retirement funds of their employees in Gore recomended “green” companies.

    It is a dumb ass racket run by greedy thug commie Democrats and bankers from wall street.

    fool.


  95. 95 | January 9, 2013 12:56 pm

    Gotta love Starbucks and their free wireless.

    @ Lily:

    The real problem for the Democrats is that they believe, like healthcare, that this is a winning issue for them, and they ignore or dismiss all polling which disagrees with their conclusion. Americans are not about to give up their right to have a gun because of the rare actions of a madman. And I would love just one person to challenge Biden on the 500 gun homicides in Chicago in 2012 -- a city with strict gun control laws. I guess if you only kill them one a day it’s not nearly as bad as 7 at a time.


  96. Lily
    96 | January 9, 2013 12:56 pm

    citizen_q wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    citizen_q wrote:
    @ Iron Fist:
    I hope you are right, but I take nothing sane or reasonable for granted any more.
    Critical thinking has grown wings and flown out the window lately now hasn’t it?
    Descended into group think, spoon-fed talking points, and shouting louder then the other person.

    Yep. Hopefully we as a nation will come to our senses again. Yeah I am overly hopeful. Heaven knows what the damage will be though before that happens …


  97. lobo91
    97 | January 9, 2013 12:57 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    @ Iron Fist:

    Thanks for clearing that up!

    The 4473 was pretty much a running joke prior to the implementation of the background checks. As long as you weren’t dumb enough to check the boxes saying that you were a felon, drug addict, or crazy, you’d get whatever you wanted. The forms just went into a file cabinet.


  98. 98 | January 9, 2013 12:57 pm

    @ lobo91:

    They’re all for religious crusades so long as they are the right (read Left) religion. Unrestricted Abortion is just fine, but owning a gun for self-defense should be highly resricted. That is the morality of the Left.


  99. Lily
    99 | January 9, 2013 12:58 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Lily:
    Finally read through the whole thread and noticed you didn’t get an answer. He/she just throws out bombs and waits for us to react.
    This is a day ending in “y,” after all…

    :lol: :lol: :lol:


  100. 100 | January 9, 2013 12:59 pm

    @ taxfreekiller:

    Gore is the biggest phony on the planet. Doesn’t even remotely practice what he preaches. In fact, it was pointed out that George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford was more environmentally friendly that Gore’s house in Tennessee, and certainly more than Gore’s new Mega-Mansion.

    Travels by private jet, chauffered in limousines, and travels by train to pick up his Nobel Prize as a big show for the cameras….

    …meanwhile the luggage all traveled by SUV to the hotel.


  101. Lily
    101 | January 9, 2013 12:59 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Lily:
    You are correct. Mass shootings are a rare animal and when they do happen they are over exposed by the media. Even if guns were outlawed then another weapon would have been used. These people who do this have mental issues. So we will outlaw shovels, bats or bow and arrows?
    And rocks…sticks…2x4s…rope…

    Yep and big knives the list is long.


  102. EBL
    102 | January 9, 2013 1:02 pm

    Al Gore is definitely green! He is rolling around in piles of green stuff and releasing all sorts of chakras!


  103. 103 | January 9, 2013 1:03 pm

    OT, but I gotta crow

    Big doings here tomorrow New 70″ TV being delivered!

    The old 65″ Rear screen projection is being carted away to be parted out -- she was a good and faithful soldier.


  104. Lily
    104 | January 9, 2013 1:03 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    Gotta love Starbucks and their free wireless.
    @ Lily:
    The real problem for the Democrats is that they believe, like healthcare, that this is a winning issue for them, and they ignore or dismiss all polling which disagrees with their conclusion. Americans are not about to give up their right to have a gun because of the rare actions of a madman. And I would love just one person to challenge Biden on the 500 gun homicides in Chicago in 2012 — a city with strict gun control laws. I guess if you only kill them one a day it’s not nearly as bad as 7 at a time.

    You have an excellent point. Chicago is an excellent example too. Sometimes there is people killed by shootings more than just one a day in Chicago. The question should be now if guns are that evil and using laws against them works for example like Chicago they have gun laws then why oh why is there so many murders in Chicago??????
    I do believe the only sound you will hear if you don’t hear gun shots (especially if you ask this question in Chicago!) will be *crickets*.


  105. heysoos
    105 | January 9, 2013 1:05 pm

    I suggest that BO take his new draconian EO and implement it in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia for a one year trial run to measure it’s effect…put his money where his mouth is


  106. lobo91
    106 | January 9, 2013 1:07 pm

    @ Lily:

    I do believe the only sound you will hear if you don’t hear gun shots (especially if you ask this question in Chicago!) will be *crickets*.

    Actually, you’ll hear the same excuse you do from Bloomberg, which is that the problem is caused by the rest of America not having the same laws they do.


  107. buzzsawmonkey
    107 | January 9, 2013 1:08 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    put his money where his mouth is

    He likes to put OUR money where his mouth is—except when he’s buying expensive food to throw down his wife’s gullet. Then he’s putting our money where HER mouth is.


  108. 108 | January 9, 2013 1:08 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    Mack -- what size room is it going into? I thought about getting a bigger one for my house for football, but I’m not sure if the picture wouldn’t get distorted -- room is 10 x 10.


  109. Lily
    109 | January 9, 2013 1:09 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Lily:
    I do believe the only sound you will hear if you don’t hear gun shots (especially if you ask this question in Chicago!) will be *crickets*.
    Actually, you’ll hear the same excuse you do from Bloomberg, which is that the problem is caused by the rest of America not having the same laws they do.

    Ah that makes sense…pass the buck so to speak.


  110. 110 | January 9, 2013 1:10 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    Couple more questions -- as I am fascinated and no one I know has one this large — yet.

    Wall mounted or stand mounted — and where did you purchase so I can look it up (as it is the height of Southern rudeness to inquire about price….)


  111. Lily
    111 | January 9, 2013 1:10 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    Congratulations!!! Just in time for the Superbowl too. ;)


  112. 112 | January 9, 2013 1:15 pm

    @ Lily:

    I’m always fascinated by gun “buy backs” in the large urban centers like L.A. and San Francisco here in California, where they get the obligatory media photo of the cache of arms turned in, and the libturd politicians talk about how successful it was.

    Meanwhile, my friend the S.F. Homicide detective said this — “and we can only stare in stunned disbelief as the ‘no questioned asked’ returned guns are melted down and destroyed, and with them evidence of probably any unsolved gun crimes in the City. Plus we’ve now provided them the means to buy a new gun -- from the Hunter’s Point Alley and Firearm Shipping Mall.”


  113. 113 | January 9, 2013 1:16 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Oh, Obama knows that his EO will be ignored. It is about making gun owners into criminals. As gun owners also tend to be conservatives, it will give him an excuse to lock up troublemakers. Gun control has never been about crime control. Ever. The first gun control laws in the US were in the Reconstruction Era South to keep freed slaves from owning guns. Gun control has always been about political control. It is a naked power grab.


  114. 114 | January 9, 2013 1:18 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Ras reports that 75% of country approve of gun ownership.
    And back we go. Later gators.


  115. citizen_q
    115 | January 9, 2013 1:18 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    I suggest that BO take his new draconian EO and implement it in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia for a one year trial run to measure it’s effect…put his money where his mouth is

    I wish all of the social engineering do-gooders would have to live under whatever crack-pot scheme they want the rest of us to live under first, no exceptions, and if somehow passed into law for a time afterwards as punishment.


  116. 116 | January 9, 2013 1:18 pm

    Did you see the Drudge headline on Obama’s threat of EOs? He headlined with a picture of Hitler and a picture of Stalin. I guess he’s off the White House Christmas card list :P


  117. buzzsawmonkey
    117 | January 9, 2013 1:19 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Gun control has always been about political control. It is a naked power grab.

    Do not forget that Obama’s mentor Bill Ayers is a longtime Maoist, and that one of the dicta in Mao’s Little Red Book is, “Every Communist must grasp the truth; political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”


  118. lobo91
    118 | January 9, 2013 1:19 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:

    And the ones that haven’t been used in crimes are either stolen or ancient, non-working guns that have been sitting in some old lady’s closet since her husband died 20 years ago.


  119. Lily
    119 | January 9, 2013 1:20 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    Couple more questions — as I am fascinated and no one I know has one this large — yet.
    Wall mounted or stand mounted — and where did you purchase so I can look it up (as it is the height of Southern rudeness to inquire about price….)

    Me I go with stand mounted. Just my opinion. Wall mounted tends to put a crick in my neck. ;)


  120. 120 | January 9, 2013 1:22 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Ayers himself may not have killed any people (maybe), but the Weather Underrground sure did. Obamas associations would have denied him a security clearance if he weren’t the President.


  121. Speranza
    121 | January 9, 2013 1:25 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ taxfreekiller:
    Gore is the biggest phony on the planet. Doesn’t even remotely practice what he preaches. In fact, it was pointed out that George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford was more environmentally friendly that Gore’s house in Tennessee, and certainly more than Gore’s new Mega-Mansion.
    Travels by private jet, chauffered in limousines, and travels by train to pick up his Nobel Prize as a big show for the cameras….
    …meanwhile the luggage all traveled by SUV to the hotel.

    I think Gore had a breakdown after 2000.


  122. Lily
    122 | January 9, 2013 1:25 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Lily:
    I’m always fascinated by gun “buy backs” in the large urban centers like L.A. and San Francisco here in California, where they get the obligatory media photo of the cache of arms turned in, and the libturd politicians talk about how successful it was.
    Meanwhile, my friend the S.F. Homicide detective said this — “and we can only stare in stunned disbelief as the ‘no questioned asked’ returned guns are melted down and destroyed, and with them evidence of probably any unsolved gun crimes in the City. Plus we’ve now provided them the means to buy a new gun — from the Hunter’s Point Alley and Firearm Shipping Mall.”

    Why are they going with the no questions asked? And why aren’t they comparing to bullets found at a crime scene? The police are actually putting a noose around their necks by doing this. Or whoever makes this policy. It doesn’t have to be this way and they don’t have to annouce that first before they melt the guns down that they will be tested.


  123. Speranza
    123 | January 9, 2013 1:25 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Ayers himself may not have killed any people (maybe),

    It wasn’t for want of trying.


  124. Da_Beerfreak
    124 | January 9, 2013 1:27 pm

    citizen_q wrote:

    heysoos wrote:

    I suggest that BO take his new draconian EO and implement it in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia for a one year trial run to measure it’s effect…put his money where his mouth is

    I wish all of the social engineering do-gooders would have to live under whatever crack-pot scheme they want the rest of us to live under first, no exceptions, and if somehow passed into law for a time afterwards as punishment.

    There’s no place for social engineering in a free county.
    You’re either free or engineered. You can’t be both.


  125. buzzsawmonkey
    125 | January 9, 2013 1:27 pm

    For all you “sportsmen” out there—since we are being told that gun ownership may only be justified as matter of “sport”—here is some required reading:

    The Most Dangerous Game.


  126. Lily
    126 | January 9, 2013 1:29 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Carolina Girl wrote:
    @ taxfreekiller:
    Gore is the biggest phony on the planet. Doesn’t even remotely practice what he preaches. In fact, it was pointed out that George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford was more environmentally friendly that Gore’s house in Tennessee, and certainly more than Gore’s new Mega-Mansion.
    Travels by private jet, chauffered in limousines, and travels by train to pick up his Nobel Prize as a big show for the cameras….
    …meanwhile the luggage all traveled by SUV to the hotel.
    I think Gore had a breakdown after 2000.

    I do too and he went up to the mountains and I don’t think he has recovered from it either. He is looney tunes….it amazes me anyone takes him seriously.


  127. citizen_q
    127 | January 9, 2013 1:32 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:
    Ayers himself may not have killed any people (maybe),
    It wasn’t for want of trying.

    Didn’t ayers describe himself as “guilty as hell, free as a bird”?


  128. Da_Beerfreak
    128 | January 9, 2013 1:32 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ theoutsider:

    That’s OK. Joe the Biden is going to be the Democrat nominee. How are you going to deal with that? And while we are talking about how you deal with things, how are you going to deal with the coming Entitlement Cliff? What is your proposed solution for the time when Social Security, Mediare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt is 80-90% of tax revenue?

    What entitlement cliff? Dennis Kucinich was just on TV insisting that Social Security is perfectly fine.

    Of course, he also believes that he’s been abducted by space aliens, so you can take that for what it’s worth…

    It’s a damn shame the space aliens didn’t keep him…


  129. lobo91
    129 | January 9, 2013 1:32 pm

    @ Lily:

    I do too and he went up to the mountains and I don’t think he has recovered from it either. He is looney tunes….it amazes me anyone takes him seriously.

    theoutsider has a shrine to him in his basement room.


  130. lobo91
    130 | January 9, 2013 1:33 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    It’s a damn shame the space aliens didn’t keep him…

    those aliens aren’t stupid…


  131. Lily
    131 | January 9, 2013 1:34 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    Iron Fist wrote:
    @ theoutsider:
    That’s OK. Joe the Biden is going to be the Democrat nominee. How are you going to deal with that? And while we are talking about how you deal with things, how are you going to deal with the coming Entitlement Cliff? What is your proposed solution for the time when Social Security, Mediare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt is 80-90% of tax revenue?
    What entitlement cliff? Dennis Kucinich was just on TV insisting that Social Security is perfectly fine.
    Of course, he also believes that he’s been abducted by space aliens, so you can take that for what it’s worth…
    It’s a damn shame the space aliens didn’t keep him…

    Well apparently he is space alien reject…even they didn’t want him. No surprise there. ;)


  132. 132 | January 9, 2013 1:35 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    Mack — what size room is it going into? I thought about getting a bigger one for my house for football, but I’m not sure if the picture wouldn’t get distorted — room is 10 x 10.

    The room it’s going into is 10 X 18, but it’s connected to the living room via a large arch. It’ll be on one of the 10″ walls with the fireplace at the other end. It may be a little large, but I currently have a 65″ rear screen and it looks great.

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    Couple more questions — as I am fascinated and no one I know has one this large — yet.

    Wall mounted or stand mounted — and where did you purchase so I can look it up (as it is the height of Southern rudeness to inquire about price….)

    Stand mounted, but I got a little “higher than normal” 28″ stand. I got it at HH Gregg, mainly because of Best Buy’s seeming (and unseemly) financial support of CAIR.

    It’s about a $2,900 unit, though I worked on ‘em a bit because I got the stand at the same time (no, I don’t think


  133. 133 | January 9, 2013 1:36 pm

    you’re rude) :D


  134. Lily
    134 | January 9, 2013 1:36 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Lily:
    I do too and he went up to the mountains and I don’t think he has recovered from it either. He is looney tunes….it amazes me anyone takes him seriously.
    theoutsider has a shrine to him in his basement room.

    This would not surprise me at all and off to the each side one for Hillary and on the other side one for Billy Jeff. Then there is the Goracle and in the middle he biggest of them all is obama and he says his prayers to him each day. I wonder if outsider is working.


  135. 135 | January 9, 2013 1:38 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    There is nothing in the Second Amendment about hunting, and the Supreme Court has found that we have a right to self-defense. I don’t think that it is a stretch to say that that right to self-defense includes rifles (the SC specifically included pistols in the Heller decision). What Obama and the anti-civil rights Democrats are doing is daring the Supreme Court to strike down clearly unconstitutional laws. They are, as I have said, one and the same as the “Segregation Forever” Democrat in the ’50s and ’60s.


  136. Da_Beerfreak
    136 | January 9, 2013 1:42 pm

    citizen_q wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:

    So, Biden and company are meeting with “gun safety groups” today.
    But there’s nobody there from the NRA, which is the largest gun safety group in America.

    I don’t put much stock on any of these meetings. I believe they are all for show. Their plans have long been drawn up waiting for an event significant enough to fully exploit.

    My expectation is that they will cherry pick supportive sound bites, or if they are very lucky they will gain a weapon from the NRA if there are any misstatements or something else that may be twisted for effect.

    Obama doesn’t need or want any help from Congress on gun control. He’s going to use the ‘Do Nothing Congress’ as an excuse to rule his why with EOs. Since there’s nobody in DC Town with the guts to stop him, he’ll probably get away with it. Legal or not, he doesn’t care…


  137. buzzsawmonkey
    137 | January 9, 2013 1:45 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    There is nothing in the Second Amendment about hunting, and the Supreme Court has found that we have a right to self-defense.

    Oh, I know. I think it would be interesting were someone to open a gun shop that was named TRT—Tyranny Resistance Tools™, instead of “Sporting Goods.”

    Read the story, if you’re not familiar with it.


  138. 138 | January 9, 2013 1:45 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    There is nothing in the Second Amendment about hunting, and the Supreme Court has found that we have a right to self-defense. I don’t think that it is a stretch to say that that right to self-defense includes rifles (the SC specifically included pistols in the Heller decision). What Obama and the anti-civil rights Democrats are doing is daring the Supreme Court to strike down clearly unconstitutional laws. They are, as I have said, one and the same as the “Segregation Forever” Democrat in the ’50s and ’60s.

    The 2nd Amendment is specifically about protection from government, but I’m preaching to the choir on that one……


  139. Alberta Oil Peon
    139 | January 9, 2013 1:46 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    By the way call your cable company and tell them not to pick up Al-Jazeera.
    Speranza, I respectfully disagree. I WANT to see what the enemy is doing.

    I’m sure you will be able to stream it FREE on the Internet, like you can most other networks. Why PAY to have muzzie propaganda on your cable?


  140. Alberta Oil Peon
    140 | January 9, 2013 1:47 pm

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    It is, but Christie wants to be the forerunner.

    He wants to be a Toyota? He’ll have to lose a lot of weight, then.


  141. 141 | January 9, 2013 1:48 pm

    Hey, has anyone seen Drudge Report within the last few minutes? He’s not particularly subtle this afternoon…. :D


  142. lobo91
    142 | January 9, 2013 1:49 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Obama doesn’t need or want any help from Congress on gun control. He’s going to use the ‘Do Nothing Congress’ as an excuse to rule his why with EOs. Since there’s nobody in DC Town with the guts to stop him, he’ll probably get away with it. Legal or not, he doesn’t care…

    Obama has really made one of the flaws in our system of government apparent: There actually is nobody who can stop a rogue president from doing whatever he likes.

    Short of impeachment, Congress can’t stop him from doing anything. The courts can’t stop him, either. They have no enforcement mechanism. Law enforcement works for the executive branch.


  143. buzzsawmonkey
    143 | January 9, 2013 1:52 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    There actually is nobody who can stop a rogue president from doing whatever he likes.

    Not when the media is behind him.

    Were the Republican Congressional leaders not gutless maggots, they would have stood up to him a great deal ere now, and marshalled the other Republicans (and maybe even some vestigially sane Democrats) to do so also.

    But they have refused to confront, define, and denounce Obama’s rogue behavior for four years, and there is no evidence that they intend to change.


  144. 144 | January 9, 2013 1:55 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Oh, I am. I read it first in Alfred Hitchcock’s Spellbinders in Suspense when I was about ten.


  145. Lily
    145 | January 9, 2013 1:56 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    Hey, has anyone seen Drudge Report within the last few minutes? He’s not particularly subtle this afternoon….

    Just looked (oh my!) …. no he isn’t being subtle!!! And more news outlets should actually be telling the truth instead of backing up a loser like bo….and when it comes to bo they should be less subtle too…good heavens they aren’t subtle on most things only obama…


  146. 146 | January 9, 2013 1:57 pm

    A totalitarian regime requires a certain amiount of crime and violence to stay relevant. If crime and violence were almost completely eradicated, then we wouldn’t need a totalitarian regime to keep us safe from the bad guys. The regime needs its Sandy Hook and Aurora, Co. theater violence in oprder to convince the people that we need the totalitarian control by the government to keep us safe. That is why their anti-crime and anti-drug efforts never really work. They were never meant to work.


  147. Lily
    147 | January 9, 2013 1:57 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    Obama doesn’t need or want any help from Congress on gun control. He’s going to use the ‘Do Nothing Congress’ as an excuse to rule his why with EOs. Since there’s nobody in DC Town with the guts to stop him, he’ll probably get away with it. Legal or not, he doesn’t care…
    Obama has really made one of the flaws in our system of government apparent: There actually is nobody who can stop a rogue president from doing whatever he likes.
    Short of impeachment, Congress can’t stop him from doing anything. The courts can’t stop him, either. They have no enforcement mechanism. Law enforcement works for the executive branch.

    BINGO! BINGO! BINGO! We have a rogue president and NOTHTING IS BEING DONE ABOUT IT!!!!!! It infuriates me!!!!!


  148. Da_Beerfreak
    148 | January 9, 2013 2:00 pm

    @ lobo91:
    Looks like Old Dingy Harry is planning on retiring when his current term is over.


  149. unclassifiable
    149 | January 9, 2013 2:01 pm

    @ lobo91:

    The press I read said they were SUMMONED to the White House for a separate meeting…

    …and by the sound of it they are going.

    When oh when will soneone say “Shove Mr. President! You are not a king!”


  150. 150 | January 9, 2013 2:01 pm

    Lily wrote:

    And more news outlets should actually be telling the truth instead of backing up a loser like bo….and when it comes to bo they should be less subtle too…good heavens they aren’t subtle on most things only obama…

    Aside from Drudge, they’re a little late to the party.


  151. Da_Beerfreak
    151 | January 9, 2013 2:01 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Speranza wrote:

    too many low information people out there easily influenced.

    I take your point.

    Shutting off one cable channel isn’t going to change anything.


  152. 152 | January 9, 2013 2:02 pm

    Later, peeps. I need to make a cable run for the new toy,,,hot damn!


  153. Lily
    153 | January 9, 2013 2:03 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    A totalitarian regime requires a certain amiount of crime and violence to stay relevant. If crime and violence were almost completely eradicated, then we wouldn’t need a totalitarian regime to keep us safe from the bad guys. The regime needs its Sandy Hook and Aurora, Co. theater violence in oprder to convince the people that we need the totalitarian control by the government to keep us safe. That is why their anti-crime and anti-drug efforts never really work. They were never meant to work.

    Not sure there is ever a way to actually control crime. There isn’t. There is always going to be bad people that do bad things period. Nothing to do with a totalitarian government at all. Even under Hitler there were serial killers and not the soldiers who were committing genocide. Look there is never, ever going to be a place anywhere on earth where no crime is committed. Now that place may cover up their horrid crime stats. What I see is a president using a horrific crime that happened and spinning it to his own ends which is sick.


  154. 154 | January 9, 2013 2:05 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    That is why their anti-crime and anti-drug efforts never really work. They were never meant to work.

    That is the nub of it. You can prove time and again that more guns == less crime, but they don’t care. Reducing crime isn’t the purpose of gun contro. Political control is its sole purpose everywhere that it has been enacted. The Supreme Court has twice said that the Second Amendment was an individual right, but the anti-civil rights Democrats don’t care. You’d think this would wake the Libertarians up, and even groups like the ACLU that claim they are for civil rights, but you would be wrong. I think most “civil libertarians” are simply members of the Democrat machine. They’d shut up and take their medicine from a Democrat President, even if he reordered the segregation of the military (obligatory Woodrow Wilson reference for Rodan’s enjoyment).


  155. buzzsawmonkey
    155 | January 9, 2013 2:16 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Not sure there is ever a way to actually control crime. There isn’t.

    Oh, yes there is. Once upon a time there were public-order laws. You’d get run in if you were a vagrant—i.e., with no visible means of support. You’d get run in if you were drunk in public—or just for being disorderly in a public place. You’d get run in for loitering. You’d get run in if you were a “masher,” bothering a woman. You’d get run in for solicitation.

    You’d spend some time in the lockup and be assessed a fine in night court; if you couldn’t pay the fine, you’d serve a few days.

    And you know what? There was a lot less crime.


  156. 156 | January 9, 2013 2:19 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    They do what the Dems tell them!


  157. Lily
    157 | January 9, 2013 2:20 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Oh I agree…but those laws aren’t in play anymore. It’s a
    “If it feels good; do it” mentality out there.


  158. buzzsawmonkey
    158 | January 9, 2013 2:22 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Oh I agree…but those laws aren’t in play anymore. It’s a
    “If it feels good; do it” mentality out there.

    Correct. Getting rid of those public-order laws—enforcement of which would have nipped Occupy Wall Street in the bud, and which would have made the racist flash mobs of last summer probably not happen because the rampaging kiddies would be worried about arrest—was one of the first big pushes of “civil liberties” law in the post-WWII period.

    Getting rid of the public-order laws made the widespread bum behavior, drug use, and rioting of the Sixties possible—and things have progressed from there.


  159. 159 | January 9, 2013 2:24 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Back then, too, a lot of people carried guns, and there was no need for a permit. But 70 years of Democrat rule have damned near destroyed the United States. It is worse in some places (Detroit is Third World), but it has gotten bad all over. I’ll bet you that most of those laws that you talked about were gotten rid of by “civil libertarians” worried about people’s civil rights”, and I’ll bet you that most of the groups that did it see nothing wrong with Obama’s unconstitutional power grab with gun control.


  160. buzzsawmonkey
    160 | January 9, 2013 2:24 pm

    It would actually be interesting to do a history of the abolition/erasure of public-order laws; to see what people and groups were behind the lawsuits and legislative intiatives (if any) which repealed them.

    I’d wager the results would be very interesting.


  161. buzzsawmonkey
    161 | January 9, 2013 2:29 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    You beat me to it.


  162. 162 | January 9, 2013 2:30 pm

    Er, IF? Pistols are not mentioned in the Heller decision -- handguns are mentioned. That’s why DC tried to get away with not allowing pistols after Heller, just revolvers. Dick Heller threatened to start the whole dog and pony show over again and they (DC) backed down.


  163. 163 | January 9, 2013 2:47 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    Handguns is all inclusive. DC would have lost. Pistol is also, BTW, all inclusive. It does not necessisarily just refer to semi-automatic pistols. Revolvers were also refered to as pistols before semi-automatics existed, as were, IIRC, single shot weapons. Dueling pistols are not semi-automatics.


  164. 164 | January 9, 2013 2:53 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    In the most common, modern use of the term, a pistol is a hangun in which the chamber is integral with or directly attached to the barrel. It doesn’t refer to the action, be it a Glock 18 in full auto, or a flintlock. What it doesn’t include are handguns with a barrel/cylinder gap, not all of which are technically revolvers, BTW. But in any case, yes of course DC thought they would lose again -- that’s why the caved.


  165. 165 | January 9, 2013 2:54 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    Should have said “barrel/chamber gap”, since there are weapons that have barrel/chamber gaps but not cylinders.


  166. 166 | January 9, 2013 3:04 pm

    New Thread.


  167. 167 | January 9, 2013 3:08 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Hey, anyone know Lobo’s gun class website? Folks over at HotAir are asking questions about where to take gun safety classes, thought I would pimp Lobo out to those who might be in Colorado…


  168. lobo91
    168 | January 9, 2013 3:35 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    @ Rodan:

    Hey, anyone know Lobo’s gun class website? Folks over at HotAir are asking questions about where to take gun safety classes, thought I would pimp Lobo out to those who might be in Colorado…

    Here


  169. 169 | January 9, 2013 7:05 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    A totalitarian regime requires a certain amiount of crime and violence to stay relevant. If crime and violence were almost completely eradicated, then we wouldn’t need a totalitarian regime to keep us safe from the bad guys. The regime needs its Sandy Hook and Aurora, Co. theater violence in oprder to convince the people that we need the totalitarian control by the government to keep us safe. That is why their anti-crime and anti-drug efforts never really work. They were never meant to work.

    GMTA!


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David