hblask

Perfect! As it should be!

Hey Bob, good to see you are still around. Looks like things have slowed down significantly. Any talk of shutting it down for good?

We were discussing the ACA being upheld by SCOTUS, and I dozed off. Are we still discussing that?

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I'd bet on knowledge way up the chain and a high-level coverup. Obama's move just reinforces that. I'm hearing rumors across the internet that some hard evidence is coming out before the election. If it doesn't, we can assume the whole thing was a political charade. But I've been hearing the rumors for 2 years, since before it was in the headlines, so I can't just dismiss them.

OK, I'll give CNN a little break on this, but if I was this guy's boss he'd be looking for a new job. He basically said "I don't want to do my job anymore because it's too messy." That'd be like me telling my boss I shouldn't have to program hard stuff because it makes me tired.The reason I didn't know about Scarborough is mainly because I only see short clips of him a couple times per month. I've seen him defending Obama on crazy left-wing schemes, and I've seen him defending the R's on some of their crazy stuff (and the good side of both, also). Basically, I've seen him all over, but

Is Joe really that conservative? From what I've seen he's sort of mixed. And who is her father?

What real news organization would even publish something so stupid? "We shouldn't cover the news because it might upset some people". Really? They thought that was good enough to publish? When the story involved hundreds of deaths? Something has gone awry at CNN when an editorial like this doesn't get laughed out of the newsroom. I generally think they are OK, too, although that blonde woman is not the brightest bulb. But that's probably not why they hired her.

CNN has officially thrown in the towel on being a news organization:

Jimmy Carter not happy with the civil rights violations under ObamaI guess he's starting to agree with Bill Clinton:

You just repeated the argument that mocked your illogic. "Not allowed to have guns" is gun control. So yes, you are still saying "if they weren't allowed guns, those guns they didn't have wouldn't have helped them." I have to agree with you on this tautology.

This analogy didn't make sense when LLY used it, and it makes less sense to repeat it. Banana peels are not weapons, or armies would use them. Acting like the effectiveness of banana peels as a weapon of self-defense is in the same class as guns -- which the left *usually* likes to claim go around killing people all by themselves, but in this case seems to believe they are ineffective (!) -- is just silly.

Your final sentence is why I don't understand the controversy over Joe the Plumbers comments. I think everyone can agree that an armed populace resists better than an unarmed populace. It seems unlikely it would've stopped the holocaust, but JtP never said that exactly (at least not from the comments I've seen). All that's left is to argue about the degree of effectiveness. Whether it would've saved 100,000 or 2 million, that's still a lot of lives spared.

I think this decision has left things more confused than before. That's what happens when you start with a bad law and have a Supreme Court that doesn't have any fundamental belief system -- you just get random sort of nonsense.In the end, vigilantes like Sheriff Joe are not going to solve the immigration problem, and the current solution of having an economy that really really sucks is not permanent. It will eventually have to be dealt with in a realistic and moral fashion or this problem will continue forever.

Stimulus so good it takes effect before it happens!

Explain that to the Soviet Union regarding Afghanistan.... or the US.Hint: there were no drones during WWII. Every Jew who was killed required a face-to-face confrontation. Six million died. You don't think six million points of resistance could've made a dent?Of course, not all 6 million would've done it, because most people are cowards. But the largest size estimate I found for Hitler's army at any time was about 4.5M, with most estimates less than a million.Estimates are that 3 in 10 Americans own a gun. What if those 6 million armed themselves at that rate? This discussion is a

Do you mean after the 50% or so cuts after WWII? Yes, yes it was.The massive Keynesian spending during the Great Depression, on the other hand, did wonders.

More excuses from the Big Government crowd: sure our policies have lead to disaster every time they've been tried, but that's because they just happen to have been tried under the wrong conditions every time.

Wow, some people really need to study history harder. An determined armed populace generally wins over technologically superior invaders. Have we really reached a point in this country where people don't believe that an armed populace is harder to oppress than an unarmed populace? Really? I... just.... wtf?

I don't even see how this can be up for debate, based on both common sense and history.To note: I'm not saying the Holocaust would not have occurred, but clearly there would've been fewer innocent deaths if Nazi soldiers died in the streets at random moments. It is impossible to overpower an armed populace that is ready to defend itself to the death. Did the Jews meet that criteria? Once they saw how bad it is, I think they would've been. That probably wouldn't have been in time to stop the entire thing, because some people will wait until there are no other options and no other hope

THe whole concept of executive privilege is a joke. We are paying their salary, they have no secrets from us. The only thing they should be able to withhold from the people who pay their salary is things that are a direct threat to national security or the lives of agents of that security, as determined by a non-partisan panel with clearance to see everything. Everything else should be public record.

I haven't seen the commercial, just a write-up of what it is about, but the supposedly controversial quotes I saw from it were pretty straightforward. An armed populace has a better chance of repelliing attackers than an unarmed populace. This is such a basic truism I can't even understand why it could be controversial.

I'm confused by your apparent anger over this issue. This seems like a no-brainer: soldiers going door-to-door, hauling unarmed people away to their death, vs soldiers going door-to-door occassionally being shot in the face and dying. Are you really questioning whether the death of, say, 10 or 15% of the soldiers would slow down the Holocaust?There are only a certain number of people willing to turn on innocent people the way Nazis did. If you start taking out a healthy percentage of them, it gets harder to recruit and retain more of them.There are countries throughout the world that ha

Really? You don't see how an armed populace could possibly help resist invasion vs an unarmed populace? Really?This seems so obvious I'm not even sure why it is controversial. Could the Jews have stopped Hitler? I've already said probably not, but in other countries it's not so clear. There's a reason some countries have never been successfully invaded. Heck, the existence of the US is in large part due to an armed populace. There are plenty of historical examples.I think claiming the Holocaust would've been prevented is overstating the case, so I would not argue that, but it coul

I've read several reports today referencing court cases which state that it only applies to communication with the president. I, of course, did not check the accuracy of that statement, but saw it a couple of times in relatively neutral sites.