Senate fails to pass gun regs
Pat sends us a link to the Washington Post which tearfully reports that the new gun control regulations have failed to get the necessary number of votes in the Senate. And it went down in a bipartisan vote;
The vote on the so-called Manchin-Toomey amendment was 54 in favor, 46 against — failing to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to move ahead. Four Republicans supported it, and four Democrats voted no.
Two screeching gun control harpies were removed from the chamber when they shouted “Shame on you!” to no one in particular.
“They are an embarrassment to this country, that they don’t have any compassion or care for people who have been taken brutally from their families,” Maisch said as officers attempted to remove her from the building. “I hate them,” she said of the senators.
“We’re sick and tired of the death in this country and these legislators stand up there and think it’s a bunch of numbers,” said Haas, whose daughter, Emily, was wounded in the April 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech.
“It’s a shame, it’s appalling, it’s disgusting,” she added.
I guess they couldn’t find anyone who was pleased the bill was defeated, because they didn’t bother to interview anyone with that particular view. Oh, by the way, one of those Republicans who defected was – surprise! – John McCain;
“Is this a perfect solution? No. will it prevent all future acts of gun violence? Of course not,” McCain said. “Would it have prevented the most recent acts of gun violence? In all likelihood, no. But it is reasonable, and it is my firm conviction that it is constitutional.”
So, McCain just thought that he should “do something” irrespective of the result. Who needs him? Harry Reid, at the last minute decided that he’d vote for it, too, I know, you’re surprised;
In a notable reversal, Reid said he would vote for a proposed assault weapon ban “because maintaining a law and order is more important than satisfying conspiracy theories, who believe in black helicopters and false flags. I’ll vote for the ban because saving the lives of police officers – young and old – and innocent civilians – young and old, is more important than preventing imagined tyranny.”
The tyranny that Harry, the draft dodger, says is imagined, is right there in his mirror every morning.
Joe Bite Me, probably one of the big reasons that bill failed, since he was riding herd on gun control and couldn’t keep his lips from flapping about the most ridiculous shit on the planet was fairly pissed;
Biden reiterated that the proposal would not create or lead to the creation of a federal gun registry. “Nothing can be further from the truth,” he said.
Biden also dismissed suggestions that the measures would infringe upon people’s constitutional right to bear arms.
“There is no – zero – no infringement on the Second Amendment, not one single thing being proposed,” he said.
Yeah, well, no one on the planet believes a thing you’re saying anymore, Bite Me. You’re a punch line. You should resign. After Sandy Hook, gun control was a slam dunk and the president guaranteed it’s failure by putting Bite Me in charge of it.
What a wet firecracker. Yeah, and if the Left wants to blame someone, blame Biden and the other morons who thought they had something to contribute to the debate, but they were uninformed and downright ignorant and dishonest. Blame the inflated statistics and polls. Blame Bloomberg for being a rich guy trying to shove his personal ignorance down our collective throat. The soft drink ban in NYC contributed to this failure as much as anything. Blame Mark Kelly for trying to deny stuff for the rest of us while buying the same stuff for himself.
The gun grabbers showed their collective ass throughout the “national discussion” and no real American wanted to be seen as part of the ignorant, hypocritical crowd who wanted to disarm America while clinging to their own guns. And now, despite the failure of the legislation, the Democrats are going to pay for their lies to our face next November. Now they know why the Clinton Gun Ban wasn’t renewed last decade.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Is this the same insipid that was all over this board with his nose turned up when the political process goes his way? Hilarious.
@49- You’re being intentionally dishonest. I’m not talking about guns in general, i’m talking about this specific piece of legislation. Background checks are popular. There’s not a poll that says otherwise.
@50 filibuster you say? I’m not sure that word means what you think in means
@51 Please point to the passage in the Constitution that calls for a super majority on ALL legislation? Because I can sure show you the parts that describe the election of the President- something President Obama accomplished twice. So i have no problem with the “political process” apparently repukes do, otherwise they’d let the votes proceed.
Who said anything about a super majority? I merely commented on your glee when something in American politics goes your way, and your grumpiness when it doesn’t. The process is what it is, and just because it did not work out the way you personally want it to, doesn’t mean it is broken. I’m sure the next time the 3/5’s rule works out to the advantage of one of your pet issues you’ll be the first to exalt it.
There wasn’t a filibuster, remember, Sippy? This was a test vote to see if they could even try to get this bill passed. And, it’s the Senate rules, not the Republican’s rules. They’re the minority party in the Senate, remember?
So, what was this POS bunch of bills supposed to actually do? Explain that, if you would. Exactly, what different background checks would be performed. Were those background checks in the bill more enhanced than the background check that are now performed?
@sippy
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Cry about it, you little faggot. Fuck you.
Oh sippy life is tough for you…as we used to say back in the old days.
Cry about it saddlebags.
Hey, Spiffy – you dumb, stump-sucking, self-important, illeterate, blithering idiot – it’s CLOTURE, NOT CLOSURE.
If you are going to use the subjunctive in a sentence, it is WOULD HAVE, NOT WOULD OF.
WOULD HAVE
COULD HAVE
SHOULD HAVE
Go ahead, show us how uneducated and functionally illiterate you are. You just make it that much more fun to yank your chain, Splinky.
As of late, we should be focusing our efforts on legislation that would mandate more comprehensive background checks on people buying pressure cookers and ricin poison, don’t you agree sippy? All the polls show overwhelming support for background checks to close the pressure cooker show loophole.
Sippy-poo, I take back part of what I said about you earlier, I should have asked if you even made it to the THIRD GRADE before you dropped out of school and started drawing welfare. You sniff a lot of glue before you rant, don’t you? Gun Control Laws aid and abet violent criminals by assuring them that law-abiding people will be unarmed VICTIMS. Just look at the per capita violent crime rate of, say, Chicago vs, Kennesaw, GA, where local ordinance states that all households are required to have a handgun and ammo, ex-felons, the mentally ill, etc. are excepted. Every time a State passes a Concealed Carry Law, a drop in the violent crime rate soon follows. Another fact about these mass shootings is that they’ve occurred in “Gun-Free Zones” something that promises these cowards no resistance.
You lose yet again.
Well, I see Sippy the Pinhead and Porn Industry Enabler is back, and crying in his beer.
For your edification, Sippy: the Constitutional passage you’re looking for is in Article I, Section 5, to wit:
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.”
This gives the Senate Constitutional authority to allow a filibuster, and to set whatever threshold they desire for cloture. The senate has set that threshold at 60% (3/5) in its Rules, if I recall correctly – rules established under the above part of the US Constitution.
Perhaps if you weren’t throwing a tantrum worthy of a 2 year old because your side didn’t get its way you wouldn’t have missed that.
Hondo, Sippy-boy SAYS he works in the porn industry, I bet that’s his fancy title for his job, a part time Sales Clerk/Janitor at some porn shop in the armpit of wherever he lives!
@63 – The word you’re looking for is ‘fluffer’.
@52 – I also find it odd (hypocritical) that proponents of this bill parrot a line about how it had this huge support of the public and the Senate ignored “the will of the people” yet I seem to recall there being a widespread public dislike for Obamacare (between 55%-60% depending on which poll you’re quoting) and that passed in contravention of “the will of the people” after considerable arm twisting (politics perhaps?) by the White House.
@62- Well, thank you for actually insulting me on perceived flaws I actually have. I almost felt like getting a job at a Burger King just so that all these “flipping burgers” insults would have merit.
You’re the one that supports a product that kills 10s of thousands of people each year, not me. But I guess your love of the Bill of rights is only limited to the “right” of people to kill either their self or others.
You’re very good at ignoring the parts of the Constitution that are inconvenient to you. Like half of the Second Amendment, the OTHER sections of the Constitution that mention a Militia in purely military terms, the Militia acts of 1792, 1795 and 1903 and a slew of SC decisions made before Heller all of which state that there is no individual right to own guns. So much for being an “originalist”.
And here you’re doing it again. The Constitution was VERY clear as to what types of bills should require a super-majority, they are: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. Having “rules of proceedings” does not enable the Senate to ignore the express written words of the Constitution. To essentially turn the Senate from a majority rule body to a minority rule body. This use of the filibuster is ignoring all Constitutional restraints and making a mockery of the express wishes of the founding fathers. It’s also making a mockery of the original intent of the filibuster which was to set up rules of discourse, not to become a de-fact Amendment to the Constitution.
Furthermore, if you folks are so certain are policies won’t work, why don’t you let Democracy sort it out?
The embarrasment was the leader of the most powerful nation in the world acting like a two year old. His visible outrage was comical considering that he showed none when it really mattered in his first presser following the Boston bombing.
@65. Anyone who had more than a superficial familiarity with the obamacare horror believed that there was sinply no way the Supreme Court would uphold the law. It was a cut-and-dried interstate commerce clause matter that simply could not be upheld. So, many people–including congresscritters who voted for it–played it safe, and deferred to the Supremes with the expectation they would toss it, or, at least, gut it. Surprise! Out the window went the ICC framework and in came the tax rationale, which had itself been rejected by the administration. I think that a lesson was learned, in part, and that many folks now (at last) see that if they don’t personally take responsibility for showing the spineless ones in congress how to vote, we stand a good chance of losing substantially more liberty than we already have. I like to think so, anyway.
@63- I said I write copy for them. The work consists mostly of rewriting their sentences. The writing is not generally dirty. It’s mostly things like: “This scene was filmed by our Canadian team etc. etc. etc.” I actually wish it was a bit more filthy, the job would be more interesting. But the work is easy and they pay pretty well.
AMEN, G. R.! B. Hussein 0bama was reacting to the vote like Sippy-boy reacts to truth and facts!
@68= You’re wrong. No one questioned the Constitutionality of the law up until Jeffrey Toobin had a coronary after oral arguments. The law is unquestionably Constitutional. While i’m glad the ruling went my way, it should of stood on its merits on ALL fronts. The bill clearly falls under the general welfare clause AND it is part of international commerce. Furthermore the idea that Congress can’t withhold funds to enact legislation would be a new one on Reagan.
While I guess i’m looking a gift horse in the mouth, this law is clearly Constitutional on all its merits.
“The writing is not generally dirty.[…] I actually wish it was a bit more filthy, the job would be more interesting.”
Oh, well, that changes everything! In that case, feel free to lecture us on decency and please do assume the moral high ground. What a porn-producing POS.
@72- The moment the porn industry starts acting like the gun industry you can lecture me. There is no PRA (porn rights of America) stating that porn should be sold to anyone anywhere or that ALL porn should be made legal or that there should be no legislation on it at all. No one is shouting “FROM MY VASELINE COATED HANDS!” No one in porn is trying to prohibit the CDC or other organizations from studying its effects (so far they’ve found it’s harmless- but they’re welcome to keep going). No one in porn is advocating that it be made illegal for pediatricians or other professions to speak ill of the product.
Furthermore there’s at least SOME good i can point to from porn. Major advances in technology from e-commerce to increased bandwidth, to streaming technology have all come from the porn industry.
Plus why do you all have such problems with “feel good stories” that don’t involve killing people?
Sippy, your Boss is calling, hear it? He says “CLEANUP IN VIDEO BOOTH #3!”.
@69 – Funny that you mention that you re-write other people’s sentences, because you can’t seem to write one on your own.
The fact that you’re a functional illiterate that works in porn just verifies my suspicion about you. Conduct reveals character, and clearly you have none.
Spare us the civics lesson. We know how it fuggin’ works. You’re just upset because you didn’t get your way.
I’m not getting paid 40 dollars an hour to write on this board.
I also get paid $22 an hour to write for my regular job. So there’s two employers that disagree with you. I thought you believed in the market?
I think your problem isn’t that I can’t write a sentence. I think your problem is that i kick your ass every time you’re foolish enough to debate me.
@74- My employer is in the Czech Republic. They’ll have to clean it themselves.
But kudos for coming up with an insult that is at least a little funny.
“Yeah, well, no one on the planet believes a thing you’re saying anymore, Bite Me. You’re a punch line. You should resign.”
Actually, I think Joe should stay in place. He’s the NRA’s secret weapon. Joe is the Stephen Wright of this administration – What he says usually doesn’t make any sense, but it’s almost always entertaining.
@46: Um, you might want to go back and fact check yourself, before placing blame on the 60 vote super-majority rule (hint: the first time it was used was when the Civil Rights Bill was being debated and voted on and I can gaurantee you that republicans weren’t in charge of the Senate back then and they aren’t now).
As for the rest of your ranting: I have more moral authority over this issue than you or the two broads, since I still have the scars and bullet fragments. I don’t call myself a victim. Labelling people as victims to placate your own infirmities is only designed to make you feel better. Also, I’m not for more gun control, either. The numbers don’t matter to you, because you’re all about emotion, not logic, so you ignore them and then come on here and pronounce that the numbers don’t matter because you have sand in your vagina and that’s more important. You, like McCain, want to ignore the fact that nothing in that bill would improve the situation and will make it tougher on law abiding citizens, yet it’s still worth passing. For what? For you to “feel” better? Yeah, that’s a great reason to pass national legislation that will do nothing except limit law abiding citizens; so you can feel better.
When you are able to cope with reality and logic, then come back and we’ll discuss this at length, but until then, just go have yourself a good cry and some tea, maybe light some candles and play some Kenny G.
@61 Actually, the more gun laws the less gun violence. That’s proven not only around the world but in the States as well:
“Fleegler and researchers from Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health studied information from all 50 states between 2007 to 2010, analyzing all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and data on firearm laws compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states’ firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.
Specifically, Fleeger pointed to states with many gun laws like Massachusetts, which had 3.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, and New Jersey, which had 4.9 gun-deaths per 100,000 people. Conversely, he focused on states with less laws like Louisiana, which had 18 deaths per 100,000 individuals and Alaska, which had 17.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/
%62- “Sand in vagina”- yeah, you’re all about rational and reasoned debate, pooper. Please, spare me.
@80 – Don’t forget the District of Columbia, with the MOST restrictive laws, and 31.2 firearms deaths per 100k.
There goes that angle. Try something new.
Wow, Sippy – I’m impressed. As I recall, other info you’ve posted elsewhere here at TAH pegs your age at the mid- to late-40s. And you’re already on easy street, raking in the princely sum of $22 an hour writing porn! What a sterling example of economic productivity and societal good you are!
I’ve provided you the Constitutional authority for the Senate to make its rules in comment 62 above. Those rules are what specify the requirements for 60 votes on select issues. Those rules are further fully in accordance with and authorized by the Constitution.
If you have an objection about the supermajority requirement for anything in the US Senate, talk to the Senior Senator from Nevada. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you above, the Republican Party does not currently control the Senate and thus cannot change its rules.
Now, how about you cite one SCOTUS case pre-Heller that specifically states the right of firearms ownership is NOT an individual right? Not a case that says firearms can be regulated – a case that explicitly and unambiguously says that firearms ownership is NOT an individual right.
Other than Reconstruction-era Cruikshank v. US, I don’t believe you can. (Even Cruikshank is not completely consistent regarding the matter either, stating later in the same opinion that it agrees that Congress has no power to “infringe” on the ownership of firearms. It appears only to allow states to do so. That much of Cruikshank was indeed overturned by the SCOTUS when it incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states – but in McDonald v. Chicago, not in Heller v. DC. Since DC is a Federal enclave vice a state, Heller v. DC is itself fully consistent with Cruikshank.)
I really don’t think you want to use Cruikshank – the blatantly racist SCOTUS case that enabled Jim Crow – to make your point. But you’re welcome to prove me wrong.
Spiffy works in porn? Well, that explains a lot. What happened to all that vaunted studying for this and that? Not so much, huh? Oh, well, c’est la guerre.
The city of Chicago has had a rapid rise in gun violence and gun-related deaths in 2012, per this article:
http://www.wheaton-criminal-attorney.com/2013/01/21/chicago-gun-crime-rates-highest-in-2012/
In fact, Tony Preckwinkle managed to get a bullet tax law passed, levying a tax on ammunition sold — legally, of course — which pays for medical expenses for uninsured victims of gun violence at Stroger Hospital and other hospitals.
Bascially, because unemployment has not dropped sufficiently to provide work-related wages for the po’ folks in the poorer neighborhoods, gun-related crimes and deaths are rising rapidly. Because the Sinaloa drug cartel has its claws embedded in the collar counties, guns are available to any street criminal who wants them, despite the increased gun control laws in these counties and in state of Illinois. My old neighborhood is experiencing a severed rise in gun deaths. I lived there for 35 years with nothing happening.
That’s CRIMINAL people, Splinky, not licensed gun owners (meaning someone who abides by and follows the laws). CRIMINALS.
Statistics argue against everything you say. EVERYTHING.
Ex-PH2: the USA Today (AKA the “Marvel Comics” approach to the news) article that Sippy the Pinhead cited in turn cites a study from Harvard and the Boston Children’s Hospital – neither of which is a particularly unbiased source politically. It doesn’t provide any way to view its basic data. It’s therefore probable the article (as well as the study on which it’s based) engaged in a practice known as “cherry picking”: using select data to support a predetermined thesis while ignoring other data that would tend to refute that thesis.
Data from 2008-2009, provided at the link below, includes DC and all states but Florida. It focuses on firearms crime vice “firearms deaths”. And the data there seems to say the Harvard/Boston Children’s Hospital “study” is completely full of it, at least regarding any contention that tougher gun laws result in fewer firearms crimes.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=30444
Oh, yeah, Spiffy, about the whole ‘porn is free speech’ thing argument: that took place before the Supreme Court back in the 1960s before you were even born.
Books that had been “banned in Boston” (guaranteed a sale, mind you) as being prurient and lewd were judged to have literary value, thus providing the legitimate publication of novels such as the “Tropic of Cancer” by Henry Miller, and the infamous “Lady Chatterly’s Lover”.
Authors whose work had literary value but was considered borderline were subsequently legitimized and able to publish in the United States. I’m referring to Jack Kerouac, Henry Miller, D. H. Lawrence, J. D. Salinger, etc., or anyone whose written work included even vague references to sex.
If it weren’t for that ruling, the whole romance novel industry would consist of a bunch of boring little stories about women getting groceries and having idle thoughts about zucchini and carrots, and movies would be as dull as “Summer Magic” instead of “Ghost”. Some of Bette Davis’s early movies are available on DVD now. They are the pre-code era films, and some of that stuff is surprisingly raw for that era.
@73 “Furthermore there’s at least SOME good i can point to from porn.” I can say the same about rape and murder, you idiot. Those crimes keep police, prosecutors, judges, and corrections officers employed. And that’s good for the economy. What a freakin moron.
I find it ironic that a person that works in the industry that exploits women calls others sexist.
@88. Yes, but PornSippy didn’t say that it was heterosexual smut, now did he? Could be child porn and, most likely, queer male porn. Could be bestiality, too.
@85, Hondo, I figured as much. Gun-related violence is on the rise everywhere, and gun-related deaths are rising along with it. There are better statistical references, including the one I provided, which contains a link to Chicago gun violence statistics.
Spiffy picks and chooses, doesn’t go for the real stuff, because the real stuff, including more up-to-date info, won’t support his/her/its argument.
I can pull in statistics regarding the Sinaloa drug cartel’s influence in Chicago alone, and how they relate to a rise in gun violence and gun-related deaths.
We already have plenty of gun laws on the books that are not being enforced. We don’t need any more band-aids or wasted time.
And Joe “I’m a Drunken Dipstick” looked more like the Grumpy Cat than anything else. Grumpy Cat just has a bad underbite and Joe can’t use that as his excuse for looking unhappy.
The moment the porn industry starts acting like the gun industry you can lecture me.
Huh…checking the Constitution and nowhere in the Bill of Rights do I see anything about the right to own spank mags. But of course, your claim that porn doesn’t ruin lives is complete horseshit. Just keep your head down and cash those checks, pretending what you’re doing is honest work that provides a benefit to society.
I’ve gone through this thread and you’ve either bullshitted, gotten your facts wrong, or contradicted yourself so many times it would take days to fisk all your keyboard diahrrea, but since it’s already been taken care of by others here, I’ll spare you a repeat of the beatdown.
And since when is there no background check for weapons, sippy? When I bought my scary black gun just yesterday I filled one out, and I DEFINITELY remember a question regarding whether or not I’ve ever been committed or judged mentally incompetent/insane. So unless you’re willing to commit a federal crime in lying on said form (and let’s face it, you’d have to be crazy to lie knowing you’d go to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison as a result, and if you’ve never been judged as such, Loughner, Holmes, and Cho were still legally able to buy their weapons.
It’s the system YOU and your fellow liberals set up which makes it fucking near impossible to commit someone or get them mental help which create shit like this. Consider how many stupid lawyer tricks they had to play in the Loughner case just to get him medicated (forcibly) so he could be adjuged as sane or at least competent enough to understand the charges against him.
Oh, and I didn’t even get the gun home and I had people calling me offering me $400-500 more than I paid for it. I politely declined, but I’d like to thank Obumbles (and you) for generating that kind of potential profit for me should I have decided to take them up on it.
Now go fetch your fuckin shine (fluff?) box.
Twist–shhhhh…you’re making sense. He doesn’t recognize irony.
Anyone besides me think PornSplinky does phone sex, too?
Sippy-boy, you claim to be in the porn industry, yeah, like every town screams for there to be porn shops in the “Upper Edge” of their shopping districts/centers/malls, and they always seem to want one anywhere near the higher-income neighborhoods,….*OOP!* YEAH, that’s right, IT IS the other way around, *DUUUUHHHH!*! Porn addiction is just as real as alcoholism, drug, and gambling addictions, and you contribute to that. I’m a former Over-The-Road Trucker, I’ve traveled 47 of the lower 48 States, as well as parts of Canada, and I’ve driven either to or through every major City in the Continental US except for San Fran and San Diego. In each and every City, the purveyors of the product you allege to help make your living in are always in the filthiest, most run-down, drug and crime infested areas of that city or town. Like nearly all liberals, you contribute to the decay and detriment of society. You and your ilk are not unlike livestock (cattle or sheep) pushing their brethren down the chute to the slaughterhouse while hurrying to get there yourself. Here I go again on a rant after coming home from night shift, I should have kept it simple, Sippy-boy, you’re a MYRMIDON!
To all else here at TAH, I hope this rant’s more coherent than yesterday’s. (And maybe I finally did the right repair to that *BLEEEEEEP!* hot water heater!!
Ex-PH2: it’s possible. I’d guess there are some whackos (pun intentional) who get turned on by voices that sound like Arnold Horshack from “Welcome Back Kotter” speaking in semi-literate gibberish.
Whether there are enough such whackos to generate a business case for that or not is another story. If I had to guess I’d say yes, but I have no info about it either way – nor do I want any.
I never said i was rich. Do you need to make $250k to have an opinion now? I’m comfortable and relatively happy. The one admirable thing you guys do is ferret out folks who lie concerning their military history. Why promote lying by disregarding the opinions of those who are not wealthy? I do make more than the average American and I do pay a larger percentage of my income towards the government then, say, Mitt Romney. But if it were true that I flipped burgers for 7.85 an hour, i would still say that my opinion counts as much as anyones. You won’t get much argument from me on Reid. I’m a fan of the President, not EVERY Democrat. There’s no way even you believe that the section of the Constitution regarding rules of procedure was intended to allow the bodies of Congress to circumvent the Constitution regarding its most basic functions thus ammending the Constitution by fiat. The Constitution spells out when and where a supermajority is used for a reason. There is no provision in there- like with the bill of rights- that states that the Congress can procedurally decide on its own to make the passage of ALL laws to require a super-majority. If you want to make it so that a super majority is required for EVERYTHING then amend the Constitution. Furthermore, the filibuster as it is practiced now eliminates the grand bargain. Already Republicans have a disproportionate portion of the Senate as a result of the Constitution itself. Generally (I’m aware of Cruz and Rubio and Portman- and on the D end Sanders- don’t kill me with semantics i SAID generally) Democrats are elected in more populous states and Republicans in smaller. So there is ALREADY greater representation afforded Republicans by regular Constitutional processes. How much more do you need? Also, when the Constitution was developed there wasn’t as an enormous difference between large and small States. Now it’s possible for 21 states, representing 11% of the population to squash the will of 49 states representing 90% of the population. During the time of… Read more »
People, people, stop using facts. Insipid does not like facts. He likes to cherry pick, use emotion and name call. The typical liberal course of action when debating conservatives. All anyone has to do when debating more restrictive gun laws and lessening of crime is what Ex-PH2 did and that is say the word “Chicago”. Game over.
Hondo, we could have an entire discussion on porn and its industry-related side effects, but I just now watched three cars fall into a 40-foot sinkhole on the south side of Chicago on the news.
The excessive rain we’re getting has flooded northeastern Illinois so much that I may have to get out the oars and start paddling my little house to a safe location.
I don’t want any info about THAT kind of business, either.
CHICAGO, CHICAGO, CHICAGO!!!! Facts and logic are to Sippy-boy and his ilk like a Crucifix, Holy Water, garlic, and oak stakes are to a vampire!
Funny how sippy was totally cool with fucking the GOP out of a straight up-or-down vote on their legislation prior to 2007. Now? Oh, that’s racist, sexist, homophobic, or Nazi-like, to put it mildly.
Do you need to make $250k to have an opinion now?
No, but you do need to know what the fuck you’re talking about in order to not sound like, well, you.