posted
Our new Senator and the California Senator got into a minor dust-up over our Constitution. Senator Cruz took Senator Feinstein to school! She jumped ugly on him, and here is his classy response:
posted
In all fairness, Mr. Smith, I believe the material you linked from Fox News to be Opinion. As such, I believe in the interest of fairness and balance, that Opinion (and no question whatever, Gail Collins is a Times columnist) should be weighted with another viewpoint:
GBN (who forgot to pack his cap pistol when he separated from Service during 1969)
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
Liberal buffoons crack me up. Their ignorance knows no limits... (reference Gail's column)
Let me try to put it in terms even liberals can understand.
Feinstein is attempting to ban guns that are currently legal to own, and a huge number of American do own them. Feinstein is trying to ban magazines (not clips) that a huge amount of Americans already own. Senator Cruz asked her why she wants to ban legal guns and not ban legal books. She did not want to answer that question. He forced the issue, and it worked.
And Mr Norman, I have a cat that knows more about guns than Gail does.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Even though Gail is one of my must read columnists (so for that matter is Peggy Noonan in The Journal), she can be the sopisticated, yet clueless, New Yorker when out of her element. Case in point; there IS a more convenient way to get to Williston, for which both she and The Times' travel desk were equally clueless (just ask them; Amtrak goes to Boston and Washington; but then for that matter so did my Brooklynite Niece - until once on a visit here, she saw #3 coming through town):
posted
Having worked with New Yorkers on more than one occasion, I have learned that their concept is that everything west of the Appalachians is still Indian Territory and that much of the country south of Richmond VA has yet to discover indoor plumbing.
This whole "gun crime" thing I regard as nonsense. It is either a crime or it is not a crime. I don't care if the weapon is a gun or a hammer or bare hands, or for that matter, if a gun, what type.
Actually, I had forgotten. Thanks for the reminder. The scarey part is how close this picture is to the perspective of some of the people I have met that are from there.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
There are two columns today, one each in the Times and Journal, that anyone who holds to the traditional ideals of the Eisenhower and Nixon-era Republican Party, ought to read and ensure that the Party's leadership does same:
quote: The Republican Party is experiencing an existential crisis, born of its own misguided incongruity with modern American culture and its insistence on choosing intransigence in a dynamic age of fundamental change.
What a convoluted and absurd statement. There is not a single phrase in that statement that even comes close to being true. Blow is clueless.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
Peggy is just as clueless.
quote:• It ruined the party's hard-earned reputation for foreign-affairs probity. They started a war and didn't win it. It was longer and costlier by every measure than the Bush administration said it would be.
The Iraq war was over in 3 weeks. The Iraq occupation was majorly botched with all the politically correct actions Bush took, based on whiny liberals and a lack of killing the bad guys, no matter how many cities needed to be destroyed... We should have killed the bad guys and then gone home. Let Iraq experience the pain of rebuilding their Nation, so they will have a lasting impression of what war looks like.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
Here is what other people are saying about Peggy's column:
posted
Well, I guess the immediately noted discussion forum would be equally quick to call David Brooks "clueless" for expressing like thoughts with Peggy. The reference within the column to the Donatists, a Fourth Century AD faction within the Christian Church, is hardly unlike the Conservarives at their CPAC "pow-wows":
The Donatists believed that, in those hard times, the first job was to defend Christian law so it wouldn’t be diluted by compromise. With this defensive posture, the Donatists would at least build a sturdy ark for all those who wanted to be Christian.
This Donatist tendency — to close ranks and return defensively to first principles — can be seen today whenever a movement faces a crisis. Modern-day Donatists emerge after every Republican defeat: conservatives who think the main task is to purge and purify. There are modern-day Donatists in humanities departments, who pull in as they lose relevance on campus.
You can see them in the waning union movement: people who double down on history and their self-conscious traditions. You can see them in the current Roman Catholic Church, which feels besieged in a hostile world. You can identify the modern-day Donatists because they feel history is flowing away from them, and when they gossip it’s always about intra-community rivalries that nobody outside their world could possibly care about.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
There must be an extremely small amount of these Donatists around today. Admitted, I do hear a small amount of elite republicans trying to run away from normal citizens and conservatives, but that is not something new. I don't know any normal "republicans that want to purge and purify the party. That seems to be a typical liberal fantasy.
Conservatives want smaller government, rational regulations, and fewer taxes. Smaller, less intrusive government usually translates to more individual freedom. Rational Regulations would mean much cheaper products, such as freon and electricity. The ozone scam and the "dirty coal" scam are there to give government more power. At least 20% of our federal taxes, and probably 40% of our federal taxes are wasted on bureaucrats that do little to nothing and friends of congress getting choice contracts to waste tax dollars on the clean energy scam.
And I do not know why the Catholic Church would feel it is being besieged. By what? By whom? When did it start?
posted