@tgb:

Ummm, yea, what can I say? That's a nice load of right-wing BS. Sorry, not buying it.

[quote][b]jlscott[/b] - I'd give it up. Bitter deflection and invective is all it has and all it ever will have.[/quote]

Coming from you, that's rich. But, I'll consider it a compliment coming from the Teabilly crowd.

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - On which of your lists was GWB actually ranked last? [/quote]

Bottom five and barely out of office... give it time Poindexter Oh yea, where is Obama ranked in those polls?

@melmarino:
Just responding to some partisan hackery... you know, the type that comes from the right that you're okay with... or maybe "can't see." HA!

Here, wrap your little head around these:

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_...

https://www.siena.edu/pages/179.asp?item=2566
Looks like Dubya beat out Fillmore in 2010. There's only one way to go for him, and that's down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_Un...

http://theweek.com/article/index/243205/was-george-w-bush-the-worst-pres...
"It is certainly possible that years of reflection and a reinterpretation of his presidency could end up putting Bush in a more positive light, but there's no avoiding the reality that his decision to go to war in Iraq and policies of fiscal recklessness led to huge problems for the country. These are problems the country may still be reeling from as historians give Bush their second look."

Nuff said!

Damn you Obama!

[quote][b]McCarthy[/b] - Barack Hussein Obama is the most incompetent president in American history.
[/quote]

We've been over this before. Your hero Dubya the Dumb, aka Shrub, aka the war criminal, will own the most incompetent/worst president ever moniker for generations to come.
Your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will learn in school how after 911, the greatest loss of American life on U.S .soil, occurred under his "watch," Dubya pivoted to wage war on a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack, and instituted agressive "trickle-up" tax and economic policies that ultimately helped to bring the American economy to its knees... great stuff!

"US home prices up 10.5 pct. in past year"

Or as The Fixed Noise channel reported it- "Damn you Obama!"

@melmarino:
[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - Sorry, I can't see TeeWee's posts. That's why I don't respond to them.[/quote]

Oh, I see, you just throw out plusses on posts you can't see or read. Righhhhhhht...

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - Also, whatever you meant to say, what you said was wrong and explicitly so.[/quote]

Ummm no, not at all. I referred to "the limited proposal" (a proposal which was exclusively about universal background checks, as opposed to assault weapons, high capacity magazines, etc…), and I did not say "the bill/legislation." Most, except you (obviously), probably got it. There are two polls showing > 90% support for universal background checks. That's a fact.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/natio...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-uni...
They're probably wrong and totally skewed by liberal respondents, just like the presidential polls were.... oh, wait!
So, if you want to take me to task over the results of polls on the concept of universal background checks versus a single poll on the actual bill, then bully for you. Slice it and dice it all you want; however, you're obviously too dense to wrap your head around the fact that, no matter which poll you select, a significant and clear majority of Americans want this, which was my point.

[quote]It was great sport for me making you feel so butt hurt over it, too.[/quote]

Gee, so glad to make your day. Whenever I have some rectal pain, I'll no doubt think of you!

[quote]65% is 25% less than 90%. Do you think that 25% of the population is significant? I do.[/quote]

Simple math… Impressive! Are you really implying that we need 90% of the public to agree on something before we can pass a law (and remember, there actually is >90% agreement regarding the concept of universal background checks)? I don't.

[quote]So, there's your political calculus in a nutshell. Not so small as you think, is it?[/quote]

65% support for any bill is huge in this climate. Even you know that. Nice try though.

@melmarino:

Oh, pardon me, Mel. I did post "The limited proposal that was just shot down (pun intended) has been consistently supported by 90% of Americans polled." I meant to imply the notion of expanded background checks, but I didn't write that. My bad!
Thank you, thank you sooooo much for "catching me" and pointing out such an egregious error. I mean, 65% supporting the actual bill really does change the calculus, since it's such an infinitesimally small margin. The fact that gun control is not a top priority, and that Drum claims that support for gun control is shallow outside of liberal urban areas certainly shoots a big hole in everything I said. Wow, you really got me on that one, didn't you? I guess most Americans really believe that background checks are unwanted, unnecessary, and are just the next step to confiscating our guns. You know, just like the NRA believes. Besides, who cares what the majority wants? It's the vocal minority whose opinions are the most important, right?

And, I'm so glad you're playing the hall monitor for my posts. Too bad you're not as vigilant on here with some of our right-leaning members. Apparently, if they post utter BS they get a pass and/or a plus from you, huh? For example, TeeWee's bogus assertion that if I shoot his gun at a range we would both be arrested.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/16/Arizona-C...

And from the bill itself:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c113:1:./temp/~c113nKGUkU:e12552:

Glad to see that you were all over that one. We wouldn't want to allow any non-factual information to go unchallenged, would we? I guess paranoid and delusional conspiracy theories from the right-wing blogosphere just don't rise to a level that deserves your scrutiny.

Keep up the good work!

[quote] National Rifle Association leaders told members... that none in the organization will ever have to surrender their weapons.[/quote]

[quote]Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said the proposed bill "got the defeat that it deserved" and that "We will never surrender our guns, never," [/quote]

I just love how the NRA and the "You can take my gun from my cold dead hands crowd" continually misrepresents any proposed gun legislation as "Thar a com'n ta git our guns!!!" The disinformation and conspiracy theories churned out by these folks is really astounding.

Not a single proposal has mentioned taking anyone's guns away, or their right to own guns. The limited proposal that was just shot down (pun intended) has been consistently supported by 90% of Americans polled. How many times have we seen that kind of public support for any issue?

The Senators that orchestrated the bill's defeat have demonstrated an allegiance to the multi-billion dollar gun industry (and its few million NRA lemmings) that far surpasses any concerns they have for the will of their constituents, or for public safety. Let's hope that Sens. Cruz and Rand will soon submit a bill that will allow ownership of any fully automatic weapon without any background checks or a federal stamp. After all, the Constitution clearly says "it's my rite ta own one!" And, AND, if we're going to rise up against the gubbermint (US military) to "take our cuntry back" from Obama and the elite, liberal communists, we will probably need more firepower than a .223 Bushmaster provides... just say'n.

The United States- the only Western democracy where a vote of 54-46 is a losing vote.

Nor does the Constitution say that a private company cannot prevent you from doing all of the above. Private companies limit free speech all the time, and legally they can. The courts have gone back and forth on this over the years, particularly in the context of shopping malls which have been considered "public forums," but the SCOTUS has decidedly come down on the side of private ownership rights trumping freedom of speech. Would Chick-Filet not be exercising their Constitutional rights to ask customers espousing support for gay rights to leave their property? I think they would. And while you are obviously free to practice any religion, or none at all, the Constitution does not, for example, give you the right to proselytize to a private company's employees or hold a religious service there.
I really could care less where you spend your money. I was simply pointing out that your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed upon, since they don't come into play in the context of a person's of a corporation's private property... you don't have that right there.

[quote][b]gman129[/b] - I feel I have the right to inform groups about their policy change toward their Constitutional rights.[/quote]

You keep mentioning Callaway Gardens infringing on your Constitutional rights. Please, do educate us on where in the Constitution it is stated that a private entity cannot dictate rules relative to allowed behavior on its own property.
Your perception of the Second Amendment is flawed- it does not trump the rights of private ownership. Indeed, the Second Amendment is irrelevant in this context.

[quote][b]OrneryConservative[/b] - Idiot[/quote]

Limited vocabulary, huh?

@InsufferableWhiner1972:

I've thought about changing my avatar before, but since it seems to be one of the few things that you can respond to, that and your 1000 times repeated GOPTV "low information voter" talking point, l think I'll keep it!

You obviously can't refute my comment above, since it's based on facts... something that you and @McDummy: seem to consistently have a problem with.
Talk about limits of intelligence. You're our ABH poster child!

Just a few ducks... who cares? We need more oil and more pipelines. The environment will take care of itself. The important thing is that the oil and gas industry needs to make more money at the expense of everything and everybody else. Sheesh, get with the program, will ya?

[quote][b]gman129[/b] - Anyone responsible for committing a crime in the name of Christ should be crucified. Jesus Christ was a loving man put on earth to save his fellow men from hell, not create thugs and criminals.
[/quote]

What a very Christian point of view. I'm sure JC would agree!

Across the board, the far right-wing murders, maims, injures, and does more property damage in the US than any other radical political groups... but we should be far more concerned with those liberal ecoterrorists.

Obama's fault!

Meanwhile, the clown bus rolls into Winder for an evening of hyperbole and snake handling.

[quote]...an opposition bloc remains across the South, including from governors who lead some of the nation's poorest and unhealthiest states.[/quote]

Who'da thunk it? Stupid is as stupid does. Maybe someday the electorate in the red south will open their eyes and realize that the TeaPublican legislators running their states do not have their best interests in mind.

@ppensyl:
I agree, but I think Bob Barr will likely be viewed as a border-line liberal/RINO given the current makeup and philosophy of the Republican base.

[quote][b]Zeb[/b] - If they catch an illegal alien with a gun , he is supposed to be deported in the first place. This bill is irrelevant.
[/quote]

Like most bills presented by reactionary representatives from Hiram, GA

[quote][b]LCC0256[/b] - Dr Broun is a man of intelligence conscience and courage.[/quote]

HA! Since when? Can you give us some examples?

[quote][b]LCC0256[/b] - The islamist quasi marxist who lives in the white house and his supporters HATE Dr. Broun... [/quote]

Noooo, most people who can read, write, breath through their noses, and whose world view doesn't revolve around AM radio and its presidential conspiracy theories, think that ANYONE who says that, essentially, most anything based on demonstrated scientific fact comes "straight from the pits of hell," is a simpleton and a fool! It has nothing to do with hate, and everything to do with ignorance of the type that "Dr." Paul Broun, and you, represent

Hmmmm, Michelle Obama initiated a national anti-obesity program for children that encouraged healthier eating habits and exercise, but it was met with ridicule and scorn from the wingnut right. Then, Teabilly Sarah Palin responded with contempt for PA's state nutrition program- calling it a "nanny state" and, in protest, brought a plate of sugar cookies to a school in Philly.

I'm certain that our local cadre of cons (as they did with Michelle's proposal) will be posting shortly, and justifiably howling about the gubbermint telling us what to feed our kids... "it's a free cuntry and we can be as fat and stupid as we wonts to be!"

On the other hand, Deal does have an R after his name. So, I'm betting on the crickets.

Plenty of fools to pick from on the Teapublican clown bus. Look for another big win by Dems in 2016 if the GOP doesn't run someone who is rational rather than reactionary. Or, better yet, maybe they just need to do a better job in getting out their angry, hate-mongering messages. Yea, that's it!