birdog1960

all true though he is for an insurance mandate. don't know what he feels the solution is for the uninsured. don't really care what way a prez candidate swings on abortion...i'm anti abortion but i don't think the law will be changed substantially in my lifetime regardless of the prez. cutting spending is ok and needed too, as long as it's done fairly. i don't like paying high taxes anymore than anyone but i think revenues need to be increased. i think practically, he would find this, too. but if he can find a way to get out of our mess without me having to pay more, i'd be happy ( i won't be holding my breath, though).so, yeah, we don't have matching beliefs on some issues. what i like about him is his apparent integrity, something i didn't perceive in romney. integrity goes a long way with me (and yes, it's obviously been lacking in some dem prez candidates as well- john edwards anyone?).

at least it looks like he stepped on his arm...had to leave a mark! a cleat for a cleat.

kind of an odd place to find this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/tom-brady-slide-patriots-qb-kick_n_2520080.html but 70% of readers thought it was a dirty play (the other 30% are presumably from new england). the gif on the link is telling. that kick was meant to steal reeds family jewels and almost did. pretty acobatic jump from reed to save his prospects at future fatherhood.

not really. i'd like 2 parties that weren't so polarized. i'd even like more moderation on the dem side, more pragmatism and less ideology. a lot more would get accomplished.

exactly. that play should be shown to referees as a prime example fo unsportsman like conduct. the defender literally fell all over himself to avoid injuring brady, probably knowing he would get suspended for running through his leg. i doubt brady would have done the same if the circumstances were reversed.

oh, ok....it's a brietbart piece then.

it's 45 minutes. i don't take that long to watch a tivo'ed bills game. care to summarize?

this is funny on levels you aren't equipped for. have you ever even considered that your circumstance might change (and judging by your propensity to support armed revolt, i'm thinking that would likely be a good thing for you)? someday (or maybe now), you might need someone's help....

i might vote for huntsman...might even become republican again if he's nominated.

to your first point about the holocaust, were americans not armed at the time of the internment of japanese americans during world war ii or the taking of american indians territories? in the event of a riot, i'm gonna be behind a locked door with a loaded shotgun, waiting for the police or military to restore order. vigilantes shooting semiautomatic weapons in the street aren't likely be doing themselves or anybody a service. and if i thought our democracy was becoming so fragile that the govt was becoming a threat to my safety, i'd move as i'd be much more likely to live out a happy life with that option than fighting a battle i'd almost surely lose. call that weak if you choose. i call it smart. we shouldn't be making policy based on paranoia.

the revolutionary war was fought in the 18th century. charles II disarmed rebel militias in england in the 17th century, a fact cited in the scalia majority supreme court decision of 2008. is there a problem with my dates? both before the industrial revolution, after which revolutionaries were more likely to come from the ranks of tasker's gardeners and housekeepers than well heeled industrialists.

well, at least we've moved from the 17th century to the 18th.

first off, in the event that the military didn't go rogue in great numbers, there would be a great many more troops and weapons immediately available to quell an uprising and a stronger political will to subdue it. not to mention local knowledge of customs, geography, likely insurgency groups, local power structures and informants. i also don't think american civilians, in general, are any where near as tough as the afghani's but hopefully we'll never find out. the biggest factor that you're discounting is the industrial part of the military-industrial complex. a small arms, popular revolution would be very bad for business....even to the arms and military suppliers but to many other industries as well. what if they decided to stop selling weapons and ammo or supplies to the rebels (populace) because it wasn't in their best interest (and it likely wouldn't be)? but seriously, i can't believe we are even discussing these outrageous scenarios. what percentage of the armed populace do you guys estimate even contemplate armed revolt? just like in the last election, i think support (or even consideration of it) is greatly overestimated because discussions like this are often had in an echo chamber.

Could it happen? Sure. The military could revolt against a tyrannical govt. But the citizenry owning a r15's and the like would be inconsequential to their decision to revolt or to the outcome.

Where do you all get this stuff...it's like a modern day version of the anarchists cookbook. And the pictures are right out of reefer madness...if it weren't so sad it'd be scary. But you go right on believing you could fight away the govt with your merry band of weekend warriors. That's the last thing the arms manufacturers want. Breaking the myth would cost them billions. Re the Remington 870's: if they're good enough for the dept of education, they're good enough for me.

john boy and billy is a syndicated radio show (the big show), mostly broadcast in the south, i think. lots of redneck humor. often pretty funny stuff.

taking it to extremes? did you even read the piece i linked? scalia really believes the second amendment, in todays world, is still about forming a miltia so that a recurrence of 17th century english tyranny can't happen again (while admitting that small arms are unlikely to accomplish much in the way of change of a modern government). this is just ridiculous, as the writer points out. democracies, in the modern world, are almost never overturned through force. armed regime change hasn't recently happened through small arms but through powerful military weapons provided by sympathetic superpowers. yet scalia gets bogged down by the word "bear" to define what arms should be available to the public. joking or not, discussing the legality of shoulder fired weapons that can bring down planes on fox news is extreme...especially for a supreme court justice.

anybody catch art (nick searcy) on the john boy and billy show? was scanning stations and heard him. he's hillarious...who would have thunk it? also loved the second episode. several memorable lines.

and here's the real reason everyday people think they need ar 15's or rpg's or tanks: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights. take the time to read this. scalia is truly the judicial equivalent of a fundamentalist religious leader.

here's the real reason for all the arguing, lobbying and strong-arming http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/u-firearms-industry-inside-numbers-184833993.html. isn't it always?

i never said the entirety of the party is racist. i agree with powell however that there is a dark vein of intolerance within the party. that dark vein includes some racists. and yes there are black racists. the nation of islam is listed as a hate group on the southern poverty law center website...and rightfully so. but i ask again, which party's candidates do you think garner more racist votes? why is that?

And that fact doesn't convince you of the very real amount of rabid racism he's faced? Hillary? Doubtful but we'll see. They'd very likely win going away. Btw, how do you think the racist vote breaks down? Yes, they're a minority and can't directly influence the vote but they may have changed history in the 90's with Powell.

palin and sunnunu aren't the brightest of disciples. maybe they missed the memo on subtle racism. notably, you don't hear rove saying similar things in similar ways. btw, did you note the atwater/rove/schmidt/palin link? it's a pretty small knitting circle.

hardly "1 republican". rove and atwater were contemporaries in the college republicans, crossing the country together in a ford pinto http://en.wikipedia....iki/Lee_Atwater. you can't possibly deny rove's continued influence in the party and by extension, i would argue, atwater's. some even argue that atwater wrote the current republican playbook, albeit with less successful current execution. his legacy in the current party is ever evident.http://www.alternet.org/story/102994/the_lee_atwater_story%3A_meet_the_man_responsible_for_karl_rove_and_the_gop's_hate-driven_politics

What constitutes a "race card"? Is bringing to light Atwater's southern strategy playing the race card? Ask yourself what Powell hopes to gain complaining about such things as an avowed repub. You must either conclude that he's lying about his allegiance or truly finds this kind of thing damaging to himself, his party and/or the country. I'd bet on his concern for the country.