published Thursday, March 8th, 2012

The State

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

240
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
John_Proctor said...

Clay, you are giving Alabama and Georgia WAY TOO much credit for sanity. Otherwise, good point cleverly made.

Big Business's investment in buying the legislature has paid off handsomely. Now, the NRA wants the same return on their expenditure. The showdown between the two is what the lower order vertebrae in the state zoo (AKA the TN Legislature) get for trying to serve both masters.

March 8, 2012 at 12:23 a.m.
joneses said...

This is a stupid cartoon. I will use the same logic you disgusting liberals used when you thought Obama's attack on religous freedom was about contraception. You liberals screamed "Catholic women are already taking contraception". With this in mind the people who own guns already have them in their cars so what difference does it make? If someone has a gun in their car at their work place they are more likely to be responsible gun owners. The point of having guns in your cars at work is so the gun owner can protect himself to and from work if needed from the looting, liberal Obama supporters that want to steal from the people who choose to work. I am actually for no gun control as guns are the only thing left to protect us from what is becoming a tyrannical government.

March 8, 2012 at 6:18 a.m.
EaTn said...

The right-wingers don't want the government interfering with jobs with restrictions on employers in the state, except of course they do want the government to prohibit employers from restricting loaded guns on their property.

March 8, 2012 at 6:31 a.m.
Winner said...

Hey! I'm a conservative and I think joneses is an idiot. See Liberals, we aren't all back woods sister-screwers like he and some of the other trash on here are!

March 8, 2012 at 7:25 a.m.
alprova said...

jonese wrote: "This is a stupid cartoon. I will use the same logic you disgusting liberals used when you thought Obama's attack on religous freedom was about contraception."

Well...you're free to assess it any way you wish, but Rush Limbaugh thought it was all about contraceptives, didn't he?

"You liberals screamed "Catholic women are already taking contraception"."

I didn't hear anyone "scream" that, but it is a fact that Catholics disregard that particular church instruction on a regular basis.

"With this in mind the people who own guns already have them in their cars so what difference does it make? If someone has a gun in their car at their work place they are more likely to be responsible gun owners."

Tell that to Mary Sue Benson and Charlotte Johnson, who were shot and killed by James Benson at Hutcheson Hospital in January. Had the gun he used not been immediately available to him, those two women might still be alive and he might have had time to cool down before ruining his life.

"The point of having guns in your cars at work is so the gun owner can protect himself to and from work if needed from the looting, liberal Obama supporters that want to steal from the people who choose to work."

Can you link to any news story over the past three years, of such an incident occurring here in Chattanooga, that supports your contention that anyone was robbed by a "looting, liberal Obama supporter?"

"I am actually for no gun control as guns are the only thing left to protect us from what is becoming a tyrannical government."

You really need to get a grip on reality. Tyrannical? You're going off the deep end.

March 8, 2012 at 7:27 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

The cartoon is exactly why Bennett is consigned to a small-market rag.

March 8, 2012 at 7:36 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Winner - you might have accurately described some of the vocal supporters. However, I don't think that caricature depicts the brain trust that has wrapped guns in the Constitution. Follow the money behind the NRA.

And, speaking of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights is also a Bill of Responsibilities. There is nothing unconstitutional about a serious conversation about responsible gun ownership, including laws passed that support responsible gun ownership.

Loaded guns do not pass the smell test. Loaded guns in the work place also compromise the constitutional right of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

March 8, 2012 at 7:41 a.m.
MTJohn said...

John_Proctor said...Clay, you are giving Alabama and Georgia WAY TOO much credit for sanity. Otherwise, good point cleverly made.

The insanity is not limited to the southeast. Here is one idea which was tried (and, fortunately, failed) during the last Montana legislative session.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/montana-gop-lawmaker-militia-bill_n_819011.html

March 8, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.
LibDem said...

I'm not a gun person but responsible people with guns aren't particularly disturbing. However, a terrified man with a gun (joneses) is worrisome.

March 8, 2012 at 8:19 a.m.
hambone said...

Guns in the parking lot is an great idea. Employees won't have to go home and get their gun when they get fired and supervisors will think twice before they reprimand a employee for poor performance!

March 8, 2012 at 8:36 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The libtards fear of someone having a gun in their car is amusing.

Ooooooh! Big scary gun! Something needs to be done about that!

Pathetic babies.

March 8, 2012 at 8:57 a.m.
hambone said...

The NRA owns the Tennessee state legislature. It should be the NGMA.

"National Gun Manufactures Association"

Oil companies would love to have millions of people paying dues to support them and their lobby.

Don't get me wrong, I was a member till I figured out their sole purpose was to SELL MORE GUNS.

March 8, 2012 at 9:19 a.m.
tderng said...

what is the reason that liberals have against someone having the right to protect themselves in a society that has become more and more dangerous every day? just look at the rise in murders in Chattanooga the last few years.

March 8, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
MTJohn said...

hambone said...Don't get me wrong, I was a member till I figured out their sole purpose was to SELL MORE GUNS.

Bingo! And, so what if much of that production is sold into illegal markets, e.g. terrorists, drug trafficers, etc. etc.

tderng said...what is the reason that liberals have against someone having the right to protect themselves in a society that has become more and more dangerous every day? just look at the rise in murders in Chattanooga the last few years.

Because this logic is bogus! Armed citizens already have the capacity to thwart crime but gun ownership has not delivered on that promise.

March 8, 2012 at 9:39 a.m.

tderng: Rise in murders? Maybe if you take the anomalous years of 2004 and 2007 as a trend, but no, that really doesn't work. If you look at the murder rate in Chattanooga, it's been fairly consistent.

Besides, you really need to look at the actual murders. How many of them are spousal? Parent-child? Poisonings? The odds are, if somebody is going to kill you, it's somebody you know, not a stranger. A gun is not going to protect you from many of those.

Seriously, I'd like to know the people who feel their lives are threatened on the way to work, and why. Most of the threat I feel is from people's cars, and I don't see a firearm offering any kind of protection from that.

BTW, is anybody else expecting a rise in insurance rates as a consequence of this law?

March 8, 2012 at 9:57 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: “The libtards fear of someone having a gun in their car is amusing.”

I believe this is more of a responsible people with common sense VS irresponsible people without common sense issue, BRP. I fully agree with the concerns expressed by some the employers in a recent TFP article:

"NASHVILLE — Volkswagen Chattanooga’s security chief today told senators the company is “very concerned” with National Rifle Association-drafted legislation that lets gun owners store guns in their locked vehicles on employers’ parking lot despite companies’ wishes.

VW’s general manager of security, Reid Albert, told Senate Commerce Committee members that the two bills “would take away our right to control our property and interferes with our ability to take necessary actions to ensure the safety of all our employees.”

He said disagreements among VW employees have “already erupted in the parking lots.” The presence of firearms increases the potential for gun violence, creating potential problems in emotional situations such as worker dismissal, Albert said.

“Gun violence in the work place is a real and ever-present threat,” Albert said. “A law which prevents an employer from addressing this situation hinders my ability to protect the lives of all employees at Volkswagon Chattanooga.

Albert and representatives of some of Tennessee’s biggest employers, including Federal Express, are objecting to two bills dealing with guns on parking lots. Collectively, they said, the companies employ more than 1 million people."

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/mar/06/gun-bills-draw-opposition-volkswagen-tennessee-sen/?breakingnews

March 8, 2012 at 10:19 a.m.
conservative said...

Hmm, most people who have a carry permit also drive a vehicle to work. On their way to and from work they may stop for gas, shop, eat or may even have a flat tire in an area known for crime. What would be the point in having a carry permit if you have to leave the gun at home? Who believes there are not guns in cars at work already? Would it make Lieberals any happier if the bullets where nearby an unloaded gun?

March 8, 2012 at 10:24 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

I must be one of those strange people who feel afraid going to work. Maybe it is because before I got my permit I had to scurry back and forth to my car hoping the guys hanging on the street corner wouldn't start trouble since I was interupting thier drug trade. Or maybe It was the time my house was broken into and my gun was stolen because without a permit I had to leave it home whenever I left. Or maybe when I get to work on the east side of town I should not feel afraid when people get too close to the vehicle at the stoplight or sign surely noone would want to carjack my infiniti those things only happen on tv not in little ol Chattanooga. But when I get to work I have to look around lock pistol in glovebox and go on in to the hospital emergency room to help those children that manage to shoot themselves on the street on a nightly basis But perhaps we wouldn't have these shootings if people like me would just leave our guns at home

March 8, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.
limric said...

An ok cartoon today Clay. It certainly gets the point across – as you do so well. It and the accompanying editorial are (as are all gun issues) a bit of an overreaction.

Many see the right as frightened of everything. There are terrorists and threats to America under the wood pile, on the roof top or anyone brown is suspicious. This is a reason we have the disastrous ‘Patriot Act’, warrant-less wiretapping, the latest NDAA, drones soon flying over a neighborhood near you - thus turning this country into a surveillance society. ‘To keep us safe’.

Conversely, many see the left as deathly afraid of regular citizens owning firearms; which gives rise to politicians seizing upon the horrific acts of the criminals or an insane incident to create more restrictive gun-ownership measures. The most idiotic is the ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’. The ‘Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’ is another. These and other anti-gun, anti-second amendment groups believe that as long as civilians don't own guns, violent crime is reduced and it is an acceptable price to have the defenseless victimized. This hearkens back to the feudal period, when everybody's life was cheap, except, of course, those in power who had private armed forces to protect them and enable them to prey upon those who were banned from owning weapons.

I have noted over the years the claims of pro-gun-rights organizations were easily and consistently verifiable using neutral or even slightly anti-gun sources. But there is another side to the coin, and that is, check the the claims of gun-control organizations. Do they tell the truth when they promot the benefits of civilian disarmament? No. Are their claims based on statistically valid and verifiable sources? No. If they’re not telling the truth or fudging the numbers about the benefits of gun control, why would anyone trust their stated goals? We shouldn’t.

The last paragraph of today's editorial, which directly relates to Clay’s cartoon states, “Hanging in the balance, of course, is not just public safety. Also at stake is the state's ability to attract new businesses, national and foreign, that believe a balance must be observed. If the Legislature can't bring itself to protect broad public interests, it will jeopardize our job base, and public safety.” This is nothing more than fear mongering and disingenuous to the extreme. Nope, that dog don’t hunt.

March 8, 2012 at 10:34 a.m.

limric, except if you checked the pro-gun rights advocates, you would find they have their share of hyperbole as well. Or just disingenuous fear-mongering, like the NRA's VP who went on about how Obama is doing nothing about gun control in order to fool everybody as he works up some master plan to seize all the guns.

DJHBRAINERD, so what you're saying is your gun got stolen, so now there's another gun out there to be used by criminals? Maybe you might be able to make the argument if the case was being made for just one gun per person, but since the average gun owner has multiple firearms, that's not very persuasive. Your concerns about safety are misguided, you might be protecting yourself, but you aren't solving the problem, just giving yourself the feeling of protection. Carrying your gun won't stop any of the things you complain about from happening.

conservative, a cell phone would protect you a lot more in such cases, but yes, it is true you should not leave a gun loaded if you are not immediately carrying it with the intent to use. And you should certainly not leave one unsecured. Have you not read the NRA gun safety rules? Or the military regulations?

March 8, 2012 at 11:02 a.m.
hambone said...

Dear Tennessee state legislature and NRA, good luck getting TVA to go along with guns in the parking lot!

I can see Homer Simpson with a loaded gun at the nuclear plant!

March 8, 2012 at 11:19 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "I believe this is more of a responsible people with common sense VS irresponsible people without common sense issue"

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. In my opinion no one has any damn business concerning themselves with what is in my locked vehicle. It is not "their space" to control.

March 8, 2012 at 11:28 a.m.
MTJohn said...

BigRidgePatriot said...You are certainly entitled to your opinion. In my opinion no one has any damn business concerning themselves with what is in my locked vehicle. It is not "their space" to control.

From that perspective, why should we think about your locked vehicle any differently from the way that you think about a woman's reproductive system?

March 8, 2012 at 11:41 a.m.

An apt moniker, but it has nothing to do with guns. We live in a lawless society. Our basic assumption is that no one should be telling us how to live our lives.

March 8, 2012 at 11:44 a.m.
limric said...

happywithnewbulbs,

Oh I am well aware of the “disingenuous fear-mongering” associated with various “pro-gun rights advocates”. An NRA member (like me) doesn’t have to blindly support nor take as gospel everything they and other “pro-gun rights advocates” espouse. Just as me being a libtard doesn’t mean I blindly support nor take as gospel everything Democrats or the far left espouse. I do however agree with the underlying advocacy of the NRA. For without them, we would soon find ourselves in a country much the same as Australia or Great Britain.

I completely disagree with your assertion, “conservative, a cell phone would protect you a lot more in such cases”. How soon after dialing 911 will help arrive for your loved one (or you) when they are being accosted? It’d be too late, and you know it. My carry handgun is loaded (but not cocked and locked) at all times. I have to go through a (very rapid) two-step procedure before it can brought to bear. I call it ‘Smack and rack’. This reduces the possibility of accident (for my own peace of mind) without unduly jeopardizing reaction speed. To do otherwise, I believe, is foolish. Also; “Your concerns about safety are misguided, you might be protecting yourself, but you aren't solving the problem, just giving yourself the feeling of protection. Carrying your gun won't stop any of the things you complain about from happening.” Key word – deterrence. It works. Trust me on this.

Us gun nuts are a pretty stable bunch (except for BRP he he he) and just aren’t going to start shooting up the refinery or the post office. Gun issues always provoke irrational emotions. 99% of which are howling by just plain old control freaks. That being said, I have to agree with BRP in one VERY important aspect, and I’m paraphrasing, “It ain’t anyone’s damn business with what is in my locked vehicle. It is not "their space" to control.”

MTJohn, Quote, “From that perspective, why should we think about your locked vehicle any differently from the way that you think about a woman's reproductive system?” Dude - That’s a joke - right?

March 8, 2012 at 11:59 a.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

Stupid cartoon. Nothing but a distraction. Gallup says unemployment is at 9.1% BO! BO! BO! BO!

March 8, 2012 at 12:07 p.m.
potcat said...

W_W_W_T_W, an apt moniker for you would be, what_ the_ hell_Panet_am_ I_living_on???

We are told from cradle to grave what we are allowed to do. We definitely don't live in a Lawless Society.We live in a Police State!!!

March 8, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.

This cartoon is a distraction as will be nearly every news item being pushed out from the Whitehouse. Obama wants us talking about anything but his lack of answers and solutions on a poor economy, high unemployment, low home values, and a nuclear Iran.

So what were you saying, Clayduh?

March 8, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Limric said: "I have to agree with BRP in one VERY important aspect, and I’m paraphrasing, “It ain’t anyone’s damn business with what is in my locked vehicle. It is not "their space" to control.”

I must disagree with you on this issue, Limric. Employers have a legitimate right, need and legal responsibility to create a safe work environment for their employees. Since gun violence in the workplace is a real life safety issue, responsible employers are forced to address the problem. It seems to me a policy prohibiting guns on the employer’s property is the safest, most efficient, and most cost effective way to resolve the problem. The fact that your weapon is in your locked vehicle is irrelevant since your vehicle would be on the employer's property.

March 8, 2012 at 12:22 p.m.

limric: Well, it would help if you had noted such conduct, rather than focus on just your observations of one side. But in my experience, if you find yourself with a flat tire, a cell phone will help you a lot more than a gun. You can call for somebody else to come help, whereas I have found it is VERY hard to change a tire without using both hands, and you can quite easily be in a compromised position to the point where having a firearm served no effective purpose. A cell phone is much better in terms of the security it can offer.

Same with the things DJHBRAINERD was worried about. Some drug dealers deciding to mess with you are going to do so regardless of having a gun, same with the fear of somebody approaching your vehicle. Solving those problems requires a different solution than just thinking a gun will enable you to react to it.

But I'll disagree with what you keep in your locked vehicle being your own business. Mostly because of the time I know somebody who left a rotting mess in theirs. Stunk up the parking garage for weeks before we tracked it down.

bookieturnersghost, ArnoldZiffel, so what has the Republican Congress proposed to do about it? Pass another amendment declaring that your religious beliefs mean you can violate OSHA or the minimum wage laws?

March 8, 2012 at 12:40 p.m.
MTJohn said...

limric said...MTJohn, Quote, “From that perspective, why should we think about your locked vehicle any differently from the way that you think about a woman's reproductive system?” Dude - That’s a joke - right?

Yes, it is. And, the joke is on everyone who think it's inappropriate for government for even think about the contents of a locked vehicle but perfectly acceptable for the government to mandate how a woman should manage her own reproductive health.

March 8, 2012 at 12:55 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

MTJohn said... "From that perspective, why should we think about your locked vehicle any differently from the way that you think about a woman's reproductive system?"

I have NEVER advocated for control over a woman's reproductive system. I think you are confusing a lack of willingness to pay for someone else's birth control with a desire to say whether or not they should use birth control.

You should not so easily fall for the vapid arguments put before you by "progressive" talking heads.

March 8, 2012 at 12:59 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "Employers have a legitimate right, need and legal responsibility to create a safe work environment for their employees"

Says who? Are you suggesting that employers have the right to search employee vehicles to exersize this "responsibility"?

March 8, 2012 at 1:04 p.m.

BRP, sorry, but the issue was never about YOU paying for anything related to another person's birth control. No more than any other service covered by your insurance. Do you complain that your premiums are used to pay for heart surgeries that you don't have? besides, it's probably a cost saver since birth control is a lot cheaper than pregnancy, child-birth or child-rearing. Or do you think those services should not be covered by insurance?

But if you're concerned about distractions, don't blame the "progressive" talking heads, blame the opposition who waxed eloquently about religious liberties and personal sexuality, not at all about the financial aspects.

Because those aren't even happening the way you claim. If you have insurance, you already are paying for others health services. If you don't, then we have the problem of what to do if you need care that is more expensive than you can afford. Since the law currently requires treatment for life-saving care, the rest end up paying anyway. And then there are the child welfare programs. Going to complain about them expanding due to lack of birth control?

March 8, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Happywithnewbulbs said to Limric: "But I'll disagree with what you keep in your locked vehicle being your own business."

Actually, when you think about it weapons and ammunitions stored in locked vehicles could create a dangerous scenario if some kind of fire should break out in the parking lot. Potential flying projectiles could seriously harm someone or damage someone's property.

March 8, 2012 at 1:23 p.m.
limric said...

Whoa, hold on thar a minute mountainlaurel.

Don’t businesses have to obey the multiple local, state and federal laws that dictate everything from the number of parking spots to disabled access. When businesses invite the public on their property, they surrender some rights to ensure the safety of their customers. If these businesses cannot guarantee safety in publicly accessible parking lots, shouldn’t you or I be able to defend ourselves. How would it be enforced, daily inspections? Sorry, you can’t do that. You and I both know that 99.99% of the time NO ONE would ever know if anyone had a weapon in their car or not. It’s not something you advertise. If someone was truly bent on causing mayhem, simple rules never stops them.

As far as I can tell, the crux of the debate over these bills is about lawsuits versus lives. The business community wants to be able to ban law-abiding people from keeping lawfully owned firearms properly stored in their vehicles. Their motivation is to protect their bottom line, i.e. lawsuits - Period! It's also worth pointing out that two big business groups heading the opposition are the Knoxville Chamber of Commerce and the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry, those are the same entities that killed eminent domain reform legislation would have restored basic rights to fair compensation when the government takes their property against their will. That these same big business organizations are now trying to wrap themselves in the mantle of ‘private property rights’ or ‘keeping us safe’ is opportunism and hypocrisy.

I truly believe many have taken the bait and are unknowingly doing the work of the anti-gun lobby, incorrectly suggesting that the passage of these bills will make for increased parking lot shoot outs, and corporations liable for criminal acts committed on their property and thus - “making us safe.”

P.S. Please note that legislators are currently allowed to keep a firearm in their vehicles while parked on the Capitol grounds, in order to protect themselves during their commutes to and from the Capitol.

March 8, 2012 at 1:25 p.m.

Limric, legislators routinely exempt themselves from their own laws...ain't that a kicker. Next they'll declare themselves immunized from murder and bank robbery.

Or have they already?

March 8, 2012 at 1:37 p.m.
limric said...

The most dangerous thing within any automobile is gasoline. Or a can of paint.

Any projectile, a cartridge for example, will pop off, but believe it or not it is the casing that flies around. That's because of physics - it has less mass - and it doesn't have much energy. For a bullet to be dangerous it needs containment, a chamber or a barrel. Otherwise it's like a firecracker. If a whole box of 44 mags. went off in a trunk because of a fire, it'd make a hell of a racket but more than likely not penetrate the trunk.

March 8, 2012 at 1:39 p.m.
limric said...

happywithnewbulbs,

I don't doubt it at all. :-)

March 8, 2012 at 1:40 p.m.

Yes, gasoline is quite dangerous, it used to be considered the "bad" part of oil. From the perspective we have now, I'm not sure it would be approved if suggest fed out of the blue.

But like grandfathered construction, we're stuck with it.

March 8, 2012 at 1:53 p.m.
MTJohn said...

Given the history of humanity, you'd think we should have learned that violence causes lots of problems but resolves few, if any. Apparently, we are not that smart.

March 8, 2012 at 2:23 p.m.
hambone said...

One should consider what the the facts were when the 2nd Amendment was written. Citizens needed a firearm for both food and protection. If a potential treat allowed time for one to reload, OK. Otherwize the firearm became a club. Then Mr. Colt came along and firearms begain to change.

If the Founding Father had had the ability to look into the future and forsee a 30 round magazine. Then I beleive the 2nd Amendment would have been worded differently.

I have no problem with sane people having a carry permit. But don't try to tell me that only sane people can get a carry permit.

From what I have seen written on this forum and others there are some cowboys with carry permits just itching to "whoop out their piece and start blazing away".

March 8, 2012 at 2:27 p.m.
01centare said...

joneses said... people who own guns already have them in their cars so what difference does it make?

Some people ride around with illegal drugs and consume alcohol in their vehicles too. When caught, however, they can be arrested and held legally responsible. Making it legal for even responsible gun owners to bring guns onto company property is a death wish and massacre waiting to happen. The company will be powerless to do anything about it even if they suspect someone might be close to going off the deep end.

March 8, 2012 at 3:10 p.m.
01centare said...

hambone said... I have no problem with sane people having a carry permit. But don't try to tell me that only sane people can get a carry permit.

And remember too, even sane people can become insane at any given time without notice or warning. Most all those murder/suicides were committed by otherwise sane citizens with legal permits, or they could have easily obtained a permit.

March 8, 2012 at 3:14 p.m.
grandmastaj said...

If you use the term "libtard," the validity of your argument goes down the toilet. Don't give people a reason to believe some of you conservatives didn't make it past the 6th grade.

March 8, 2012 at 3:36 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Limric said: “When businesses invite the public on their property, they surrender some rights to ensure the safety of their customers.”

But it doesn’t necessarily follow that businesses do not have the right to establish policies that they believe help to ensure the safety of their employees and the public. Personally, I prefer to work for businesses that do their best to ensure the safety of their employees. If gun owners object to businesses that have such policies, they always have the option of not seeking employment or doing business with companies who have established gun safety policies.

Limric said: “You and I both know that 99.99% of the time NO ONE would ever know if anyone had a weapon in their car or not.

You may right about this, but an established gun safety policy does give an employer the right to either terminate the employment or give a warning to an employee who has violated the company’s gun safety policy should it come to the company's attention, which is important.

Limric said: “If someone was truly bent on causing mayhem, simple rules never stops them.”

True, but as I understand it, the majority of workplace homicides and violent workplace incidences are more “impulse” related. In most cases, the violent scenario would not have developed if the employee had the opportunity to go home and cool down.

Limric said: “The business community wants to be able to ban law-abiding people from keeping lawfully owned firearms properly stored in their vehicles. Their motivation is to protect their bottom line, i.e. lawsuits - Period! “

While I’m sure businesses are concerned on some level about potential lawsuits, I think the bottom line is that most businesses want to create a safe work environment for themselves and their employees simply because it’s more productive and more professional.

Limric said: “If these businesses cannot guarantee safety in publicly accessible parking lots, shouldn’t you or I be able to defend ourselves.”

Again, if you’re not happy with businesses that have established gun safety policies, you don’t have do business with them or go to their parking lots.

March 8, 2012 at 3:42 p.m.
hambone said...

The Internet Troll only lives to insult people and get a response from them.

March 8, 2012 at 3:47 p.m.
potcat said...

First off a criminal with whatever he chooses to use as a weapon against someone, be a bat,rock, knife or gun are not usually going to announce themselves to the victim and let them go get a gun out of their car and then commence their mayhem, it just doesn't work that way.

Like i told my husband if someone has you in their sights, they are going to have the Surprise advantage and in every work place shooting, they are in the building killing before anyone knows whats happening and they usually kill themselves also.

I don't get these men that decide to kill themselves and then kill the children and whole family or any unfortunate person who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Its the chances you take every day in the U.S.that allows its citizens to own Ak/47s or lets say the gun used by the mentally ill man in Arizona that can shoot off 30 rounds from a handgun.

Thats what Americans want, then by G..we all have to take our chances and hope its not you or yours.

I own several guns and have also had our house broken into and every thing that wasn't nailed down stoled, plus the guns.I now have a security fence and five dogs that know one can get through and i would not hesitate to use my gun if i could get the lock box unlocked and the safety off before i was taken over. I am a pretty good shot and enjoy practice sessions and cleaning the guns, its how i was brought up. I wouldn't ever kill anything unless it was to put it out of its misery.

March 8, 2012 at 3:51 p.m.
joneses said...

winer,

You are a liar and a fool. Do you really have thoughts of having sex with your sister? You are disgusting. You are not conservative as you, like the rest of your pathetic disgusting liberal fools, attacked me versus my message.

March 8, 2012 at 4:12 p.m.
joneses said...

Why does Clay Bennett not make a cartoon about Obama spending 6 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it. Or Obama's lie about closing Gitmo. Or Obamas taking over 1/6th of the economy with his unconstitutional socialist health care bill, or the continued high unemployment rate, or the liberal energy policies that cause burdens on the poor with high gas prices, or the dummycratic senate not passing a budget in well over 1,000 days, or Obama's failed stimulus package, or Obama's failed green energy initiatives, or Obama apologizing to our enemies while they kill our soldiers, or Obama bowing to our enemies, or Obama's failed Afghanistan policy, or Obama dictating churches go against their beliefs. You know why these liberals continue to bring up these small issues like gun control, abortion and contraception of which all are legal? It is because they want to take away attention form Obama's failures. And their are many.

March 8, 2012 at 4:33 p.m.

joneses: Why do you think it is liberals bringing up abortion and contraception? Sorry dude, but it's the conservatives who keep picking at that. You're your own worst enemy if you want to stay focused on the economy, because it's not somebody else distracting you, it's your own faction suddenly screaming about something or another.

Take your own petty litany of complaints about Obama. Every false one of them says more about you than it does about Obama.

March 8, 2012 at 5:02 p.m.
MTJohn said...

tu_quoque said...Yes it is insanity for a state to organize a National Guard auxiliary, under their command, of citizen volunteers, of varying skills, to assist the N.G. during times of emergency when the N.G. manpower is overwhelmed by demand for rescue services. What were they thinking?

You obviously did not read the bill and have no sense of the folks who promoted. On second thought, maybe you are a lot like the folks who promoted.

tu_quoque said...

MTJohn said...“And, speaking of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights is also a Bill of Responsibilities.”

B.S.!! It's a Bill of Protection against an oppressive government.

Self-government without self-control won't work and you, obviously, have no interest in self-control. Alternatively, you seem to have a lot of interest in oppressing those whose perspectives differ from yours.

March 8, 2012 at 5:40 p.m.
joneses said...

happywithbeingafool

Obama decided he was going to dictate that churches go against their belief by forcing them to paid for contraception in their health insurance. You stupid liberals made it about contraception when it was actually about this pathetic fool you worship as president dictating that churches should supply a service even though it is against that religions beliefs. Did Obama do that yes. Did you disgusting liberals make it about contraception, yes. Was it about contraception, no. That is fact whether you believe it or not.

Again you are a liar or just plain stupid. What is not true about what I said. Is Gitmo is still open, yes. Has Obama spent 6 trillion dollars, yes. Is there anything to show for the stimulus package, no. Have the dummycratic senate passed a budget in over 1000 days, no. Is the unemployment rate still very high, yes. What has this pathetic fool you worship as president accomplished? Nothing. What is not true about what I posted? Are you blind, stupid a fool or all the above? How can you say what I posted is a lie when it is the truth? WAKE Up YOU IDIOT! It is amazing how stupid you are, really amazing.

You or any of your pathetic liberal fools on here never post anything this pathetic fool you worship as president has accomplished. You continue to defend nothing.

Please keep posting you happywithbeingstupid you are the best thing for the conservative cause because people see you for what you are, a fool.

March 8, 2012 at 5:53 p.m.

joneses, no church has to supply any service. I cannot see where any church, Catholic or otherwise, has to supply any birth control pills. They merely can't choose to impose their religious strictures on their employees through selective choice of the coverage of the health insurance available to employees as a condition of employment. In other words, it protects the liberty of the employees by preventing the church from imposing on them. Whose freedom do you support, employees or employers?

And you're confusing the federal budget for the past few years with the Stimulus package. The one is maybe 6 trillion or so, but the other is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which was somewhat less than a trillion. Still, if you don't believe you can see the benefits, please, check out the website, then physically visit the locations listed on it.

Your hyperbole is just hot air, no substance. The more you make these fantastical claims, the more I wonder if you're being paid to post this nonsense in order to discredit the Conservative agenda.

Can we see your W-2s?

March 8, 2012 at 6:49 p.m.
dude_abides said...

"You or any of your pathetic liberal fools on here never post anything this pathetic fool you worship as president has accomplished." -joneseses

Any of your fools never post... ? Would you like to try that again in English, H.L. Mencken?

March 8, 2012 at 7:20 p.m.
hambone said...

DON'T FEED THE TROLL !

March 8, 2012 at 8:41 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "Are you suggesting that employers have the right to search employee vehicles to exersize this "responsibility"?"

If they have a written policy in place and inform employees accordingly, then YES, an employer has every right to search your vehicle while it is on their property.

Your choice is to not have a prohibited weapon in your vehicle at any time or to work elsewhere.

March 8, 2012 at 9:52 p.m.
alprova said...

Nothing to read here...just another law-abiding citizen with a gun;

http://news.yahoo.com/family-florida-boy-killed-neighborhood-watch-seeks-arrest-044537742.html

March 8, 2012 at 10:34 p.m.
MTJohn said...

tu_quoque said...

MTJohn said...

"From that perspective, why should we think about your locked vehicle any differently from the way that you think about a woman's reproductive system?"

When we start carrying babies around under the hood then the analogy will be complete.

Right! And, mandatory ultrasound is unconstitutional because women can hide firearms in their underwear.

March 8, 2012 at 11:06 p.m.
MTJohn said...

alprova said...

Nothing to read here...just another law-abiding citizen with a gun;

http://news.yahoo.com/family-florida-boy-killed-neighborhood-watch-seeks-arrest-044537742.html

Al - to be honest, with all of the recent efforts to promote and expand the "castle doctrine" and to relax concealed carry laws, I'm surprised that there haven't been more incidents like this.

March 8, 2012 at 11:15 p.m.
shifarobe said...

I read the circus is coming to town. It's a golden opportunity for you lefties to be among your own kind, you know, clowns and circus freaks. Kind of like a family reunion.

March 9, 2012 at 12:29 a.m.
shifarobe said...

The circus isn't so bad, you get 3 squares a day, you get to crap wherever you want and someone cleans it up. You just show up and go through the motions, mail it in. It's pretty darn close to the vision Obamboozle has for this country. I think you lefties would absolutely love the big top!

March 9, 2012 at 12:36 a.m.
shifarobe said...

Guns, gays and their sacred anuses, law students who can't stop spreading their legs, Limbaugh bad-Maher good, whatever. Whatever Clay Bonehead tosses up on the board, like a chimp flinging it's poop, don't matter a lick. It's all about Obamboozle all the way until election day.

March 9, 2012 at 12:43 a.m.
shifarobe said...

Tyranny is here, man. Getting tossed in the slammer or fined for not buying insurance is tyranny. Maybe you don't mind that because you like brown nosing bullies. The rest of us like making our own decisions, pinhead.

March 9, 2012 at 12:54 a.m.
dude_abides said...

shifabrains... You've got some nerve bringing up the circus with this three ring show you folks have been putting on this year.

March 9, 2012 at 6:09 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Isn't curious that the push for "2nd Amendment Rights" that is happening in several state legislature coincides with rising numbers of "patriot" groups?

March 9, 2012 at 7:35 a.m.
alprova said...

shifarobe wrote: "Tyranny is here, man. Getting tossed in the slammer or fined for not buying insurance is tyranny."

That is a total lie. Nobody will ever go to jail for not having medical insurance. If all goes as planned, no one will have any excuse for not having health care coverage.

On January 1, 2014, as the law is currently proposed to go into effect, those that choose to not purchase a minimal amount of health insurance from a number of sources available, individuals will pay through payroll deductions, spread out over a year, an annual "penalty" of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater.

That's about $1.83 a week.

The penalty will will rise to $695 per year per individual, or 2.5% of income, in 2016, or about $13.37 a week. In the case of an entire family being uninsured, the maximum penalty, per year, will not exceed $2,085, or about $40.10 a week.

Exemptions to the paying of the penalty will be made in cases of financial hardship.

Given that the Government will subsidize the insurance premiums of people who cannot afford insurance, there is no excuse for anyone not covering themselves and their families with insurance.

All it will take is for people to get off their duffs, fill out the paperwork, supply the requested financial information, and to a take a little time out of their life to be responsible for obtaining something as important as health care coverage.

March 9, 2012 at 7:44 a.m.
MTJohn said...

alprova said...shifarobe wrote: "Tyranny is here, man. Getting tossed in the slammer or fined for not buying insurance is tyranny."

Al - I'd suggest that shifarobe is correct - tyranny is here. It's just that you and I disagree with him about the identity of the tyrants.

March 9, 2012 at 8:34 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

potcat said... "First off a criminal ... are not usually going to announce themselves to the victim and let them go get a gun out of their car and then commence their mayhem, it just doesn't work that way."

A good point. But you would learn in your concealed carry class, if you did not realize it already, to survey your surroundings as you prepare to leave your vehicle, as you approach your vehicle, as you approach potential ambush points. Even if a permit holder is unarmed they are better prepared to avoid becoming a victim than your average citizen.

The simple act of holstering your weapon reminds you to be vigilant during your travels. The argument that criminals try to use the element of surprise to their advantage is no reason to advocate the responsibility for protecting yourself and your family.

March 9, 2012 at 8:54 a.m.
macropetala8 said...

alprova said... shifarobe wrote: "Tyranny is here, man. Getting tossed in the slammer or fined for not buying insurance is tyranny."

That is a total lie. Nobody will ever go to jail for not having medical insurance

Don't be so sure on that one Al. They said the same thing when the law was passed requiring all citizens to carry automobile insurance. With the exceptions of about two states, I believe, Americans can be arrested, fined and lose their drivers' licenses for not havin car insurance. Of course when stopped the po po will try to find and pile on as many offenses as possible, believing at least one or two will stick.

That provision in the healthcare bill is one that should be of concern to all, and it was thought up by the Repubs. The president actually fought against that part of the Bill but eventually caved to get the Bill passed. Anything we can be fined for, at some point, we can be jailed for.

March 9, 2012 at 9:01 a.m.
davisss13 said...

shifarobe said... Guns, gays and their sacred anuses, law students who can't stop spreading their legs, Limbaugh bad-Maher good, whatever. Whatever Clay Bonehead tosses up on the board, like a chimp flinging it's poop, don't matter a lick. It's all about Obamboozle all the way until election day.

Why is this guy allowed a forum membership? If this doesn't cross the line then nothing does.

March 9, 2012 at 9:08 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "If they have a written policy in place and inform employees accordingly, then YES, an employer has every right to search your vehicle while it is on their property. Your choice is to not have a prohibited weapon in your vehicle at any time or to work elsewhere."

If someone tried to exercise such a “right” over me they would get a refusal, except maybe if they wanted to check the trunk to make sure nothing was being taken from the property. If they tried to search the passenger cabin they would get a refusal and would have to make a decision. Most businesses don’t want to put themselves in that position as it would cause routine disruption to their business.

I believe you have said that you own or have owned a business wherein you employ(ed) people. Did you, in you distaste for people’s right to protect themselves, have such a policy? Did you search your employee's vehicles to ensure they were not leaving "dangerous" items in their locked vehicle? Or, more likely, would you realize that what is in your employee's car is none of your business and that if you attempted to search their car they might well refuse to allow you and that you would be forced to deal with the choice of losing a good employee or pushing your shallow point?

March 9, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.
MTJohn said...

BigRidgePatriot said...The simple act of holstering your weapon reminds you to be vigilant during your travels. The argument that criminals try to use the element of surprise to their advantage is no reason to advocate the responsibility for protecting yourself and your family.

BRP - did you read the article about the Florida teenager who was shot by an armed member of a neighborhood watch group? Do they also teach you in concealed carry classes that armed vigilantes have a duty to provoke violent encounters with individuals whom they think are suspicious?

BigRidgePatriot said...I believe you have said that you own or have owned a business wherein you employ(ed) people.

I suspect that, if this conversation were about any other work place issue, your attitude would be that the employee could either put up with the employer's policy or find employment elsewhere.

March 9, 2012 at 9:16 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

MTJohn,

No, I did not read the article. They did not teach in the concealed carry class that I attended that, " armed vigilantes have a duty to provoke violent encounters with individuals whom they think are suspicious"

Oh brother!

They taught that avoidance was your most effective strategy and you should be very aware of the circumstances when the use of your weapon is appropriate. They taught that using your weapon will change your life forever and you should pull the trigger only as a last resort.

March 9, 2012 at 9:53 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

MTJohn said... "I suspect that, if this conversation were about any other work place issue, your attitude would be that the employee could either put up with the employer's policy or find employment elsewhere"

I suspect that you are wrong. If an employee strongly disagrees with an employer's policy and does not feel that the employer has any will or hope of enforcing the policy that the employee will simply ignore said policy and exercise their rights in silence.

March 9, 2012 at 9:59 a.m.
MTJohn said...

BigRidgePatriot said...I suspect that you are wrong. If an employee strongly disagrees with an employer's policy and does not feel that the employer has any will or hope of enforcing the policy that the employee will simply ignore said policy and exercise their rights in silence.

BRP - I didn't realize that you were a union man.

BigRidgePatriot said...No, I did not read the article....They taught that avoidance was your most effective strategy and you should be very aware of the circumstances when the use of your weapon is appropriate.

Perhaps you should read the article. All of the facts are not yet in but it sure looks like a case of an armed neighborhood watcher who provoked a confrontation and then shot an unarmed person and claimed self-defense.

It also seems to be a situation in which a person, like yourself, who professes to advocate in favor of concealed carry, would publicly denounce.

March 9, 2012 at 10:15 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I misspoke…

The simple act of holstering your weapon reminds you to be vigilant during your travels. The argument that criminals try to use the element of surprise to their advantage is no reason to abandon the responsibility for protecting yourself and your family.

March 9, 2012 at 10:16 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

MTJohn said... "I didn't realize that you were a union man"

I do not understand where you get that from. I respect people's right to organize unions. I do not support forced union membership or any legislation that would eliminate secret ballots for union elections. I have only been a union member once, for a short while, as a teenager, when I lived in a “non-right-to-work” state and had to join the union as a condition of employment.

March 9, 2012 at 10:20 a.m.
limric said...

Umm Potcat, you stated in your 3:51 p.m. post, quote: “I don't get these men that decide to kill themselves and then kill the children and whole family.” Can you please tell me how that’s done.

Yea I know - Picky picky picky ! But it was a funny statement. Maybe they were all just killed by death. Hoo haw haw – cough……Sorry.

March 9, 2012 at 10:23 a.m.
MTJohn said...

BRP - unions are a way for employees to express disagreement with employer policies without fear of retribution.

I tend to agree, philosophically, with the idea that employees should be free to choose whether to join the union. However, right to work laws give too much power to employers to suppress the voice of employees. It is quite evident from our country's history that the principles of free markets have worked pretty well for management and very poorly for labor.

March 9, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

MTJohn said... "However, right to work laws give too much power to employers to suppress the voice of employees."

I hear that argument often. In my experience, unions can be quite successful in spite of right to work laws if there is a need for the union (poor behavior on the part of the employer). Unions have a hard time in the face of right to work laws if the employer treats the employee's fairly, which is the case with most employers.

March 9, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
potcat said...

Well hell limric i can mess up a sentence. I meant these men that you read about every other day some where in the US who kill their whole family and then his own ass , why doesn't he just off himself instead of a two, three and four year old and 80 yr. old Grandma.

Hope that cleared it up for you, its just something that bothers me, its cowardly. Glad you got a chuckle though.

March 9, 2012 at 10:50 a.m.
MTJohn said...

BigRidgePatriot said...Unions have a hard time in the face of right to work laws if the employer treats the employee's fairly, which is the case with most employers.

When employers treat employees, there is no need for unions. But, in our history, there are too many examples of egregious behavior by employers and not enough examples of fair behavior by employers.

I think you and I would agree that unions are a poor second choice to fair play by employers. So, how do we make the first choice work?

March 9, 2012 at 10:52 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

My favorite employment experience was in a non-union plant in a right to work state. The employer used an employee elected committee in an appeal process for employee grievances. The management team was not bound by the committee’s decisions but never overrode the committee’s recommendations during the time I was there. The vast majority of employees respected and supported the outcome of that process.

You do not have to have unions to have two way communication and respect between employers and employees. A good employer will recognize this and eliminate the need for a union.

March 9, 2012 at 11 a.m.
limric said...

Yea, I know Potcat. I was just bustin yer ba.. -er well you know. I do that every so often to everyone. Heck, I even made an exception to BRP's stability earlier. But truth be known, he has had the the most logical and reasonable arguments throughout this gun issue discourse - except for my pompous ass statements of course. ;-)

I still think you're cute as a button.

March 9, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
MTJohn said...

BigRidgePatriot said...You do not have to have unions to have two way communication and respect between employers and employees. A good employer will recognize this and eliminate the need for a union.

I agree. This country needs more good employers and zero bad ones.

And, with more good employers, there really would be no need for loaded guns in the work place.

March 9, 2012 at 11:29 a.m.
potcat said...

I didn't take a bit of offence, i laughed too. I am no limric!!

BRP, i don't disagree with every thing he writes, just 99% of it.

March 9, 2012 at 11:37 a.m.

BRP, and if all employers are saints, then we wouldn't need unions. Or safety regulations. Or grievance boards. Or any of the other mechanisms in society that serve to bring about a fair outcome.

Unfortunately, sainthood remains a rare commodity.

Also, the reason you're expected to pay union dues is because the union does serve you, they can't get out of it, so why should you be allowed to be a free rider? Do you like getting something for nothing at the expense of others?

macropetala8, but being jailed means you get healthcare, ergo...going to prison is what they wanted!

Seriously though, it's not like you can't be jailed for tax evasion already, but the trick is, they don't want to put you in prison, that costs more money than leaving you out to pay it off somehow.

March 9, 2012 at 11:58 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

happywithnewbulbs said... "BRP, and if all employers are saints, then we wouldn't need unions"

Of course all employers are not saints. I would suggest none of them are. Maybe your expectations are too high, or you have been misled to believe most employers are evil and have no interest in their employees well-being.

"Also, the reason you're expected to pay union dues is because the union does serve you, they can't get out of it, so why should you be allowed to be a free rider? Do you like getting something for nothing at the expense of others?"

You are assuming a great deal. The Union shops I have worked in had unnecessarily confrontational relationships with management that kept underperforming employees on the payroll at great expense. The atmosphere of confrontation promoted by the union created a tense, unpleasant work environment. I am supposed to value and pay for that?

“Collectivists” love to create situations where everyone is bound to their big plan. Individual needs and desires be damned. You do the same with your social programs. If you want to create some kind of “union” where people jointly purchase health insurance and collectively take care of their health insurance you can go right ahead. I have no problem with that. But please do not expect me to share your health insurance goals and expect me to be a part of your union whether I want to or not. I would much rather work out my own solution. Same with your employee union “services”. I don’t need protection from my employer because I have not had a problem creating and maintaining a healthy relationship with the vast majority of my employers throughout my life. The only exception I can think of saw me walk out of the door along with half of the staff when the owner struck one of the employees. That place is no longer in business. That is how it is supposed to work.

March 9, 2012 at 12:26 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Get used to it whinebags. We (good citizens) are packing because the bad guys are packing. It takes two to have a gunfight otherwise, you're just a victim. I look forward to getting to use my Smith and Wesson. Bring on the Clantons (aka gang bangers).

March 9, 2012 at 1:01 p.m.
potcat said...

WhatNot is exactly the kind of idiot that should never be allowed to even get near a gun.

You look forward to getting to use your Smith and Wesson, its not the gang bangers citizens should fear but a WhatNot with the mentality of a piss ant!!!

March 9, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.
shifarobe said...

Hey, Daviss13. Bring it on, man! You retarded lefties hate when someone says it the way it is. Oh, did my little comments hurt your little feelings?? Poor baby. And how does it cross the line, stooge?

March 9, 2012 at 1:48 p.m.

BigRidgePatriot, you quote part of my post, but you missed the sentence that covers the point. Why is that? Could you avoid that selective quoting?

However, I think you are the one who has the illusion that employers like you cherish are commonplace, whereas in my experience, it's rather the opposite. You think the unions are confrontational? I find it's the employers who are, and who sneer down at the employees, whatever their requests, even if it's just a cleaner restroom. That's why unions came about, to give the employees the capacity to stand together more effectively than on their own. And the worst workplace environments I've been in have been the ones WITHOUT unions, not the ones with.

You seem to want to be the RUGGED INDIVIDUALIST who strives on his own, and looks down on others who you feel are less than you, since if they didn't want help, if they didn't weaken themselves by standing with others, they'd be a lot stronger and more successful. Or perhaps you feel you'd be a lot further ahead, if only others weren't holding you back.

Now that's a delusion. Just like your example about a walkout. Striking an employee? My oh my. Such a bold action, but do you really think it's representative of what goes on? What really happens is the employer finds some far more subtler way to bleed the employees, and nobody protests because they're kept just at the threshold of suffering. Why hit somebody when you can just fire them instead, putting fear in everybody else, so when you demand they work extra hours, or skip lunch, or re-use something that should only be used once, and get what you want?

That's what happens.

BTW, in regards health care, the individual mandate is what is requiring you to get a solution, so you're not a free rider on the rest of us when you can implement it. So you know what? It's doing what you want, making sure people aren't leeches. And yes, you can pick your options. There's quite a variety of choices available to you.

You just don't get to pick for others.

March 9, 2012 at 1:56 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

happywithnewbulbs said... "you quote part of my post, but you missed the sentence that covers the point. Why is that? Could you avoid that selective quoting?"

Your point seemed to be based on the notion that all employers need to be saints. If the basis for your argument is flawed I don't see any point in arguing the conclusion you arrive at from that basis.

March 9, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

happywithnewbulbs said... "..."

There is so much hyperbole and misrepresentation scattered through the rest of your post that I am just not going to bother. Try to be a little more accurate and a little less dramatic and maybe we can try again. I don’t even care so much about the union argument. The right to self-defense is much more interesting to me.

March 9, 2012 at 2:16 p.m.

tu_quoque, you can't find me saying any such thing in this discussion. I believe you need to look over the posts, and realize you're attributing a statement by somebody else to me.

BigRidgePatriot, your argument seems to be that because there are a few saints, we don't need the structures we have to protest people from harm. Saints is a bit of a catch-all description, and I can understand how you might see it as hyperbole, but I found "if all employers offered satisfactory conditions to their employees" to be a bit wordy, and couldn't think of a better word. If you can suggest one, I suppose it could be substituted.

Still, the few good are not grossly discomfited by the solutions to stop the few bad, it would certainly take more analysis to demonstrate that we were worse off than we were before. My experiences are certainly not congruent with yours.

But hey, if you're going to complain about hyperbole, try to avoid it yourself. Same with asides into other discussions, don't start talking about something, and then blame another for getting into it.

Try taking some personal responsibility, and say something like "This is getting off-topic, I'll refrain from further discussion of this subject" while avoiding the disparagement. It'll show you actually have a genuine concern for keeping the discussion from rambling and aren't engaging in scape-goating others just to try to cast them down.

I suppose you could say MTJOHN lead you astray, but that was a rather brief sentence, the rest is of your own accord. Take responsibility for your own actions instead.

March 9, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Sorry to hear you have had such a hard time finding a good employer. If you want to work for someone like that, go ahead and organize yourself a union. I never said unions do not have a place. Geez.

March 9, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.

BRP, so you are acknowledging that unions DO have a place, and that depicting them as being responsible for the collapse of Western Civilization is excessive?

Well, that's fine with me then. Let's get off this tangent, and back to something closer to the topic.

March 9, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
hambone said...

He's a equal opportunity TROLL. He'll insult and call anyone names regardless of their political stance, just to get them to respond.

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

March 9, 2012 at 3:54 p.m.
joneses said...

Why is everything you disgusting liberals say is a lie. the secretary of energy, Chu, said that releasing the strategic petroleum reserves would lower prices. But this pathetic fool you have as president and you stupid as liberals say that putting more oil on the market will not have an effect on the price of oil. Are you all that stupid or pathetic liars or both?

March 9, 2012 at 4:15 p.m.

joneses, how does what you're saying relate to this image?

Are you just throwing out some random complaint and hoping it sticks?

Ok, then tell me how a member of the Obama administration can say one thing, and another member say another disagree, and they both be liars?

One of them would have to be telling the truth, wouldn't they? It certainly can't be that Chu isn't a liberal. First off, he's a Chinese-American, which makes him a communist agent, but he also believes in global warming and reducing fossil fuel usage. So he can't NOT be a liberal.

I know you're not being paid much to post here, but don't you at least have some pride in your work to produce something coherent?

March 9, 2012 at 4:39 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "If someone tried to exercise such a “right” over me they would get a refusal, except maybe if they wanted to check the trunk to make sure nothing was being taken from the property."

A refusal to allow company security personnel access, would result most likely, in the calling of the local authorities, who would then force the issue. You would most definitely lose your job.

"If they tried to search the passenger cabin they would get a refusal and would have to make a decision. Most businesses don’t want to put themselves in that position as it would cause routine disruption to their business."

You're so delusional. Emloyees with a bad attitude are a dime a dozen. You will be replaced with no trouble at all, AFTER you submit to the search of your car.

"I believe you have said that you own or have owned a business wherein you employ(ed) people. Did you, in you distaste for people’s right to protect themselves, have such a policy?"

No.

"Did you search your employee's vehicles to ensure they were not leaving "dangerous" items in their locked vehicle? Or, more likely, would you realize that what is in your employee's car is none of your business and that if you attempted to search their car they might well refuse to allow you and that you would be forced to deal with the choice of losing a good employee or pushing your shallow point?"

If I did have such a written policy in place, and I had reason to suspect that any employee was in violation of it, I wouldn't bother with attempting to search the vehicle myself.

I'd call the cops and let them handle it.

No employee is worth keeping on hand if they violate a written company policy meant to protect anyone else on the property.

March 9, 2012 at 5:24 p.m.
shifarobe said...

What are you, Mr. Hambone? You just sit there and call everyone a troll who won't kiss Obamboozle's ass. That's real good.

March 9, 2012 at 6:25 p.m.
hambone said...

shifarube, either you haven't been paying attention. Or you just feel guilty

March 9, 2012 at 7:22 p.m.
joneses said...

The Dummycrats just voted down the Keystone pipeline again. This pathetic president and his communist party have continually worked to block development of vast oil fields and the use of natural resources within our own country. Strict limits have been placed on the mining and use of coal and the power plants that use it to produce electricity. It seems they like the idea of the high energy prices and what it is doing to the economy and the American people. Or it could be the dummycrats are the real ones in bed with the oil companies as their stupid liberal environmental laws keep the price of oil high so the oil companies make more profits.

Happywithbeingstupid,

Your problem is you and Bennett want the focus to be on guns, contraception and abortion to take the focus off the important issues and this pathetic president's failures. How does it feel for the price of gas to be sky rocketing and you cannot blame it on President Bush? You must feel really as stupid as you are. The price of gas is high because of your party's failed environmental policies and the environmental restrictions placed on drilling. You are a liar.

March 9, 2012 at 7:42 p.m.

Well, joneses, if you didn't want this to be an issue, go blame the members of the Tennessee legislature making this an issue. Or should we just knuckle under to whatever they want, while you push your own distractions at us?

I think that's just as likely as your own theories.

Criticizing Clay Bennett for taking up a local issue is silly though, if you really wanted to address something important, you could find plenty of forums to bring it up, and get all the attention you deserve. Coming in here with your fear-mongering claims about diversion only discredits whatever valid complaints you may have. There's other people who find the focus on "national" matters to be a distraction and want him to give more coverage to local affairs.

Same with the paper itself, probably. I know several people who dropped subscriptions because there was never the local news they carried about.

March 9, 2012 at 8:02 p.m.
alprova said...

joneses wrote: "The Dummycrats just voted down the Keystone pipeline again."

Yep...they sure did, and for good reason too.

http://michiganradio.org/post/new-kalamazoo-river-oil-spill-cleanup-plan-due-today

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/investigating-environmental-impacts-kalamazoo-river-oil-spill.html

"This pathetic president and his communist party have continually worked to block development of vast oil fields and the use of natural resources within our own country."

You do realize, don't you, that the Keystone Pipeline would be carrying bitumen, or tar sands oil from Canada?

"Strict limits have been placed on the mining and use of coal and the power plants that use it to produce electricity."

Do you remember standing over a charcoal grill? Multiply that by millions, and you might have a clue as to why a movement away from coal is a good thing.

"It seems they like the idea of the high energy prices and what it is doing to the economy and the American people."

Your statement is totally false. Nuclear energy is far cheaper and much more efficient, and it doesn't pollute the air.

"Or it could be the dummycrats are the real ones in bed with the oil companies as their stupid liberal environmental laws keep the price of oil high so the oil companies make more profits."

What a totally ignorant statement. The current increase in oil prices is mainly due to the threats that Iran has been making to Israel and the disruption of oil being sold by Iran. Europe was Iran's largest customer. Their supplies are now having to come from elsewhere, causing a tightening of oil supplies worldwide. High demand causes prices to go up.

"Your problem is you and Bennett want the focus to be on guns, contraception and abortion to take the focus off the important issues and this pathetic president's failures."

Hogwash. Republicans/Conservatives are the groups that have brought all the issues you mention out into the open, in an attempt to attack the President. The strategy has backfired tremendously.

"How does it feel for the price of gas to be sky rocketing and you cannot blame it on President Bush?"

Blaming any President for high gas prices is pure ignorance.

"The price of gas is high because of your party's failed environmental policies and the environmental restrictions placed on drilling."

Domestic production of oil in the United States has increased under President Obama. Get a clue.

http://www.chron.com/business/article/U-S-oil-gusher-blows-out-projections-3341919.php?cmpid=twitter

March 9, 2012 at 9:41 p.m.
shifarobe said...

Domestic production related to oil shale is up due to the efforts of private companies, not Obamboozle. Wrong Alfullofcrapo. Obamboozle is oily, but knows nothing about it otherwise.

March 9, 2012 at 10:13 p.m.
shifarobe said...

$5 to $6 gas Alfullofcrapo. That's what people will know come November. You can squeal like a pig on here every single time someone critizes Ocrapforbrains and won't change the numbersLOL.

March 9, 2012 at 10:17 p.m.
MTJohn said...

tu_quoque said...Not only did I read that article I also read several others and to date no one but the shooter actually knows what happened. The LEO's are investigating and any sane person would wait until they have completed it and issued their findings.

Agreed. All of the facts are not yet in and the investigating officers have yet to file their report with the district attorney. But, we do know the following: 1. The shooter was armed - the victim was not. 2. The shooter was in a vehicle - the victim was on foot. 3. The shooter contacted the police. 4. The police advised the shooter to not confront the victim. The shooter could have avoided confrontation. Yet, a confrontation occurred. 5. If the shooter ignored the advice given to him by the police, which seems likely, he should not be able to claim self-defense pursuant to "stand your ground".

March 9, 2012 at 10:27 p.m.
MTJohn said...

joneses said...But this pathetic fool you have as president and you stupid as liberals say that putting more oil on the market will not have an effect on the price of oil.

The quickest way to put more oil on the market, at least at home, would be to terminate all exports. Why don't the conservatives recommend that?

March 9, 2012 at 10:30 p.m.
alprova said...

shifarobe wrote: "Domestic production related to oil shale is up due to the efforts of private companies, not Obamboozle. Wrong Alfullofcrapo. Obamboozle is oily, but knows nothing about it otherwise."

You don't read very well, do you.

Oil production has quadrupled since 2009 in the Gulf region.

All oil is produced by private companies. Nobody has suggested at all that the President has a thing to do with oil production, except for those who claim that he is inhibiting domestic oil production. Such accusations are silly.

I don't have any idea why anyone with a brain would claim that the President is inhibiting domestic oil production, in light of the fact that more oil is being pumped domestically today, than has been the case for at least two decades.

"$5 to $6 gas Alfullofcrapo. That's what people will know come November. You can squeal like a pig on here every single time someone critizes Ocrapforbrains and won't change the numbersLOL."

I'm well aware that there are many people, like yourself, who wallow in complete and utter ignorance and who will gleefully continue to be ignorant for the rest of their lives.

I am under no illusion that if gasoline was 50 cents per gallon, that you would vote for Obama. The price of gas is not the reason that you dislike him. 'nuff said.

But there are also people out there who are very interested in the facts, and they deserve to read the facts, which is why I spend my time countering the kind of misinformation that you and others post on a daily basis.

March 9, 2012 at 10:50 p.m.
mymy said...

Obomites are to our country like Termites are to your home!

March 10, 2012 at 9:09 a.m.
alprova said...

If the United States were to able to pump and bring to market the equivalent of all the oil that comes from Alaska instantaneously, which would be about 600,000 barrels of oil per day or 219 million barrels per year, prices would drop only 3 cents per gallon of gas in the United States.

Currently, the World consumes about 100 million barrels of oil per day. The United States consumes about 19 million barrels of oil per day. The United States is sitting on about 2% of the world's oil reserves.

China, the next biggest addict of oil, expects to be importing 80% of its gasoline by 2030. Of course Japan, Korea, and Europe import almost 100%.

Drill baby drill and the Chinese will thank you.

Source: http://zfacts.com/p/196.html

March 10, 2012 at 9:29 a.m.
alprova said...

my my wrote: "Obomites are to our country like Termites are to your home!"

Unsubstantiated opinions offered by anyone will never become facts, outside of your undeveloped and unfilled cranial cavity.

March 10, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.

So I guess we've got nothing to say about the subject of the image?

March 10, 2012 at 9:55 a.m.
MTJohn said...

mymy said...Obomites are to our country like Termites are to your home!

And, if you really believe that, what does that make you?

How closely are you affiliated with the Christian identity movement?

March 10, 2012 at 9:59 a.m.
MTJohn said...

alprova said...Drill baby drill and the Chinese will thank you.

...as will the domestic oil companies that will sell much of that production to foreign markets.

March 10, 2012 at 10:03 a.m.
potcat said...

My God, for all of you numbnuts that believe the US is not drilling, i got some directions for you, go to New Orleans and get on a cruise ship, they are drilling platforms every where. Thousands of them in the Gulf and on out into the ocean.

Enviromentally we are playing a very dangerous game. I believe the US should be putting every thing we have toward making all transportation oil free.

March 10, 2012 at 10:20 a.m.

potcat said... We are told from cradle to grave what we are allowed to do. We definitely don't live in a Lawless Society. We live in a Police State!!!


Society and state are not the same. The state would be less likely to intervene if we still allowed family, friends, and neighbors to challenge our self-destructive behavior. The myth of autonomy is wrecking too many lives, and it wind up affecting the whole society. It’s the wild west of the soul and it’s deadly. We are created for community, not absolute independence. I have a feeling that vigilante justice and violence would subside, and responsibility and self-control would ascend if we were more closely connected in families and neighborhoods. Instead, we’ve turned our declaration of political independence into an all-encompassing, individualistic way of life. (Online forums aren’t really helping matters.)

March 10, 2012 at 11:13 a.m.
hambone said...

AL, as ol' Ronnie Raygun would say "There you go again" posting facts.

You know the only facts these so called conservatives see is.....

FAUX FACTS!

March 10, 2012 at 12:35 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

Connect the dots.

President Obama and 227,000 jobs in February.

Job well done Mr. President!

March 10, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

One more thing... 4 more years.

Enjoy.

March 10, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

I drove to work this morning and locked my gun in the glovebox when I arrived. The same thing I have done for a couple years now. I walked my dog around my nieghborhood last night with my pistol tucked in my waistband the same thing I have done since I got the puppy. The reason I got the puppy and the pistol was because I was tired of being trapped in my own home afraid of the street people always hanging on the corners keeping the old and the weak inside. These people have turned their backs on every institution availiable to them. They are raised on these streets uneducated lacking basic work/comunication skills bred on sex and violence wanting to increase their street cred with likeminded individuals. I sit here reading how I should not have the right to carry. I have the right to pursue happiness. I have the right not to be a prisoner in my own home. I do not expect some of you to understand what I am talking about, it is easy to be idealistic from behind a keyboard, but Having a carry permit has freed me from my prison of fear. Having brandished the weapon I know first hand what a deterence a .40 can be. It only took a couple days b4 word got out and the street people like cockroaches exposed to the light scurried away to someone else's corner.

March 10, 2012 at 2:38 p.m.
rolando said...

This excerpt from an in-depth article headed: Arizona sheriff finds Obama presidential qualifications forged. The liberal media has blacklisted anything of significance on the subject...except ridicule.

Quote

By Dianna Cotter

The house of cards is about to come tumbling down around Barack Obama's ears as the momentum of evidence builds. Law enforcement has found his birth documents to be "highly suspect" as a forgery. His draft card has similarly been found by law enforcement as being "highly suspect" as a forgery. The smoke screen cover created by his birth certificate, hiding Minor v. Happersett in a shadow of false mockery, has been blown away. Leaving the Supreme Court case alone on the stage, glaringly exposing Barack Obama as an usurper, an unconstitutional President of the United States.

The American Press is deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about this defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States. It is hiding Barack Obama's Fraud as it has been revealed by a Sheriff in Arizona. The silence of the American press would be unbelievable if it weren't so blatantly obvious.

It is nearly as egregious as the audacity of Obama's fraud itself.

Unquote

Dianna Cotter is a Senior at American Military University, a 4.0 Student, the recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean's and President's Lists for academic achievement. She has published at Examiner.com, in American Thinker, Accuracy in Media, and Family Security Matters.

Oh yes, where did I find this article? Pravda of all places. [No, I don't subscribe to them...just becoming aware of the oppositions motives. I watch NPR for the same reason.

March 10, 2012 at 4:19 p.m.
rolando said...

Yeah, Stanley. Connect the dots...all of them.

March 10, 2012 at 4:28 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

djhbrainerd

what kind of world do you live in? my world sounds much safer. I think i would move.

March 10, 2012 at 4:29 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

rolando, I did.

227,000 jobs created. after hundreds of thouands lost under Republican non leadership.

you can count that high can't you. 800,000 jobs lost under Bush and 227,000 created under the President?

got the mo....... going....... !

March 10, 2012 at 4:35 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

enjoy 4 more years!

I will.

March 10, 2012 at 4:36 p.m.
MTJohn said...

rolando said...This excerpt from an in-depth article headed: Arizona sheriff finds Obama presidential qualifications forged. The liberal media has blacklisted anything of significance on the subject...except ridicule.

Yes, they have. And, for the same reason that the media does not cover most of the stories published in the National Enquirer.

rolando said...I watch NPR for the same reason.

This explains a lot!

March 10, 2012 at 4:56 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

I live in chattanooga I cant move because noone will buy my house. I love to hear people tell me to move I've been trying for 3 years. There are not many homebuyers out there just lots of renters. I'm glad you feel safe in your world but we share this one and man is the most dangerous creature in it. If you'd like to see for yourself you can stop by any emergency dept any givin night and hang around the lobby. 3am when the bars close is a good time to see the nightly gun and knife show

March 10, 2012 at 4:57 p.m.
dude_abides said...

rolando... sometimes it's better just to not say anything. Today's post just makes you look foolish and gullible. Everybody knows that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a former Nazi concentration camp guard that was probed by a band of rogue aliens that escaped from Area 51 back in September, and that he has female reproductive plumbing and pimps his wife (who used to be a male chimpanzee) to inmates in exchange for prison pruno. He practices cannibalism as a hobby and has been known to buy Bald Eagles on the black market for bar-b-ques. He has trusties in the prison printing department custom print his personal toilet paper with the Constitution, because stepping all over it is just not good enough for him. He reads at a third grade level and hasn't bathed since Labor Day 1969.

March 10, 2012 at 6:05 p.m.

DJHBRAINERD, if only you were a corporation, you could declare it a capital loss, and get the government to pay you twice what you paid for it and move into one of those nice McMansions in the Suburbs!

But you're blaming that kind of thing on alcohol? Prohibition is so last century! The real solution is not to close the bars! Alcohol is cheaper than bullets.

dude_abides: You left out how he and Steven Segal sunk Atlantis while on the Missouri, then found out that George Washington was a robot, clearly establishing the precedent that an artificial man can be President, and giving the nomination to Mitt Romney.

If Sheriff Joe Arpaio had any real evidence, he'd be able to do more than hold a poorly conducted news conference. That a discredited Supreme Court opinion is being cited only shows how faulty the whole business is.

March 10, 2012 at 6:40 p.m.
conservative said...

DJHBRAINERD...... I read your comment only because I didn't recognize you from the usual suspects. I'm glad I did! You were concise and dead on. The regular sheep on this site are not in the real world, just an idealistic one made up on a keyboard.

Hope your aim is dead on if needed.

March 10, 2012 at 7:03 p.m.
rolando said...

Dude , you live a a different world from the rest of us...its all in your head. Time to visit your shrink again.

Your post was full of your usual rantings, lies, outright lies, outrageous lies, and Soros-sponsored lies. Par for your class.

March 10, 2012 at 7:06 p.m.
rolando said...

bulbs, thanks for the laugh. "Discredited" decision, indeed. Your flagrant attempt to discredit a long-standing SCOTUS decision is pathetic...and telling.

Minor V. Happersett is the only U.S. Supreme Court case in the history of the United States to clearly define what a Natural Born Citizen is. It has been cited in dozens of cases since. And that definition is exactly why Justia.com wiped it from its database.

[Quote: Justia.com is a free legal internet research site with a specific, dedicated Supreme Court of the United States server containing nearly every Supreme Court case in American history. It is specifically marketed to law students, non-profit agencies, startup businesses, small businesses and private internet researchers. In short, those who cannot afford either a lawyer or the thousands of dollars a year required by subscription legal search engines such as LexisNexis and WestLaw. Justia leverages the Google Mini internal search engine, and through this, Google.com itself increasing its visibility on nearly any search of American law. <strong>Justia.com is owned by Obama supporter Tim Stanley, and began a systematic scrubbing of Minor V. Happersett in the summer of 2008, erasing the name and specific text quoted from the case, along with specific citations to it out of dozens of Supreme Court cases which cited it over 138 years of American Supreme Court History. The controversy was dubbed "JustiaGate". -- Excerpted from Ms Cotter's article that can be found on Pravda.ru Emphasis mine.]

There is more written by Ms Cotter. Much more...seriously damaging to The Obama's campaign. Even Pravda.ru calls it "[Obama's] usurpation of the American Presidency".

March 10, 2012 at 7:24 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando, your obsession with Sheriff Arpaio's investigation will go just as far as every other birther theory. There's no shred of truth to any of them.

People can float all the theories out there, based on whatever they choose, to attempt to discredit the President's birth certificate, but there are two pieces of evidence that nobody can dispute or explain away.

Two separate Honolulu newspapers published Barack Obama's birth announcement during the first week of August, 1961. If the President was not born in Hawaii, and if all his vital papers are forged, it would be the most elaborate conspiracy ever dreamed up for an infant to be born outside of the United States 47 years before he runs for President.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/donald-youre-fired/

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/some_of_barack_obama_birth_rec.html

You are hanging on to this crap in complete ignorance. I urge you to come back down to Earth.

March 10, 2012 at 7:25 p.m.
rolando said...

Al, go back to your mom's basement and play with...something. If you can find it.

Anyone can post a birth announcement in a newspaper. "All" The Obama's vital papers, you ask? You mean his long form birth certificates that has been found [twice] to be Photoshopped and/or forged? How about his Draft Card that was shown to be false? What makes you think [beyond wishful thoughts] that all the forgery occurred when he was an infant? Backdating is easy.

So you think the US Presidency is something of minor interest that would not be worth the effort of usurp? His actual birthplace is only part of the issue as you well know. Under SCOTUS decision, he doesn't meet the eligibility requirements to be President to begin with...hence the indepth misdirection and coverup.

To cite factcheck is to cite Soros, et al. Cite something with legal teeth...

So you claim the evidence -- admitted into court -- amounts to nothing... You also claim the evidence gathered by the Arizona Cold Case Posse is of no consequence...or words to that effect.

Dan Rather lost his job and credibility for concocting false documents and presenting them as accurate in an attempt to cause Bush's downfall. He got what he deserved...The Obama deserves nothing less.

You are far, far out of your depth here, Al.

March 10, 2012 at 7:46 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "Your flagrant attempt to discredit a long-standing SCOTUS decision is pathetic...and telling."

Your lack of ability to fact check what you find on a Russian website makes you a complete fool.

"Minor V. Happersett is the only U.S. Supreme Court case in the history of the United States to clearly define what a Natural Born Citizen is."

I'm very sorry to inform you, but that case had nothing to do with defining a natural born citizen. The case was about voting rights of women.

Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, desired to vote for candidates for the office of President, Vice-President, representative in Congress, and others in the general election held in November, 1872.

She applied to register with a man having the last name of Happersett, who was the registrar of voters. He refused to register her to vote. His reason for rejecting her was due to the fact that she was not a "male citizen of the United States," but rather, a woman.

She sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for willfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, which deprived of her right to vote.

She lost. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling against her.

"It has been cited in dozens of cases since."

I seriously doubt that, at least not in nearly a century. That Supreme Court ruling of 1875 was nullified with the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

"And that definition is exactly why Justia.com wiped it from its database."

Justia likely wiped it from its database due to the fact that the decision was no longer applicable, rather than for any reason you can conjure.

I guess you were to lazy to Google the case yourself. Cornell Law School has it ready to view anytime you have the desire to erase your utter ignorance.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html

March 10, 2012 at 8:08 p.m.
dude_abides said...

rolando... I think I know what's wrong. Your K-rations have gone bad! You need to throw out your remaining stockpile and change to the new MRE's. That will mean coming out of your bunker for a while, but a little sun won't hurt you. Also, get in touch with the closest Catholic Church and see if they offer skepticisms. These are rites performed by Priests that work kind of like exorcisms, but they are aimed at casting out gullibility rather than demons. Obviously they don't always work (witness Santorum), and they'll probably need a SWAT team in your case.

Oh, and thanks for helping Pravda undermine our freely elected government. Putin will be proud of you.

March 10, 2012 at 8:15 p.m.

Really? If it's scrubbed, why can I find it on Justia? Am I a better searcher than your blogsters? The decision in it is irrelevant though, the 19th Amendment puts it in the same category as Dred Scott. It's discredited.

And let's see, an image posted on the Internet was Photoshopped? Damn, that means the original must be too...wait, no it doesn't. Why don't you offer to go inspect the original in Hawaii? What if it's Orly Taitz, Colonol Hollister, and your friend Sheriff Arpaio who are guilty of fraud by claiming something is false when it's not? And isn't it a crime to pretend to be somebody else? How did somebody get a copy of President Obama's draft card? Did they get a subpoena for the Selective Service System? What? They didn't?

Then why aren't they in prison for invasion of privacy?

What should be done to them?

March 10, 2012 at 8:39 p.m.
rolando said...

You simple a$$, Al, the full text of what I cited is now all over Google. You are too stupid, too incompetent, and stuck in in-box thinking to do anything but call people names. As I said, go play with yourself.

In the effort to deflect Minor's case from the 14th Amendment the court found it necessary to define the classes of citizenship. In so doing, it set precedent by defining "natural-born citizen". That definition still stands today.

The precedent defining "natural-born citizen" established in the Justia-wiped SCOTUS decision was never overruled and remain the law of the land even today. If you had any inkling or even a hint of the law, you would not make such outlandish claim...other than to support the usurper-in-chief.

Since you seriously doubt that Minor has not been cited in over a hundred years, cite your sources or ... well, we now how valuable your "doubts" are.

The only part of the 1875 ruling that was "overruled" [merely mooted, actually] was the original error based on her sex.

The legal and precedent-creating definition of "natural-born citizen" remains in the law to this day. [I evidently can't say that often enough trying to get it into your closed mind.]

Justia wiped -- or worse, modified -- quoted case law to eliminate or change all reference, however slight, from any other case that referenced Minor. To top it all off, the arrogant A wholes presented the remaining bits and pieces of the modified text as being full-test casefiles. All to make an English citizen eligible for the American Presidency.

March 10, 2012 at 8:44 p.m.

So Rolando, do you know the only "Obama" birth certificate that has been shown to be a fraud is the birther one that purported to be from Kenya?

Turned out to be a modified Australian one.

And no, Obama was never an ENGLISH citizen. He was technically born with the right to be a "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" but that would have been lost upon Kenyan Independence, at least until 1981, when subsequent acts reversed the sixties laws, however since that was never exercised by Obama, it's a null issue. It's commonly known as "British citizen" or even "British Subject" but not "English" which is reserved for residents of England specifically. Except for the ones who live in Cornwall.

He's still a natural-born American citizen by virtue of being the son of his mother, who was born in the US herself, of American citizens. Or are you saying Stanley Ann Dunham wasn't born in Wichita, Kansas?

March 10, 2012 at 8:59 p.m.
rolando said...

Whatzamatta, bulbs, you carrying poor little Al's water these days?

So I misspoke. Make that questionable but non-natural born US citizen...although he did not get citizenship from his mother...she was under 18.

Hawaii had lots of loopwholes and other kinds of wholes for a goodly number of years.

Still doesn't change the fact that two separate elected officials, acting independently at different times while in the line of duty, have determined that the long-form birth certificate presented as true and factual was a suspected forgery. Hm-m-m, it seems Democrat presidents have a penchant for perjury before the people...

Did I mention I love the way you overrule over 100 years of precedent by re-defining "natural-born citizen"? Regardless of what the SCOTUS said and established, you say all it takes to be "natural-born" is for one parent to be a US citizen. Do your homework. It takes both.

'Course, no doubt the current SCOTUS will make a quick re-definition and allow anyone at all to be our president...even the Iranian Azhallabad or whatever. Until that happens, Obama The Usurper is not eligible to be our president....

March 10, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.
rolando said...

Keep it up, guys. The word about Obama The Usurper will get spread around even more...

March 10, 2012 at 9:09 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "Al, go back to your mom's basement and play with...something. If you can find it."

No thanks. It's much more fun exposing you for the idiot that you are. You ask for it every time you post.

"Anyone can post a birth announcement in a newspaper."

Maybe, maybe not, but the question on the table is this; If a baby was born 50 years ago in Kenya, as has been alleged by you fine folks, what possible reason would there be to announce a birth in an American paper as if the child was born in a U.S. Territory?

""All" The Obama's vital papers, you ask? You mean his long form birth certificates that has been found [twice] to be Photoshopped and/or forged?"

The President's birth certificate, in both versions, has been confirmed by no less than three Hawaiian state officials, including the current Governor of that state, to be real and representative of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

"How about his Draft Card that was shown to be false?"

http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/social-security-number/

"What makes you think [beyond wishful thoughts] that all the forgery occurred when he was an infant? Backdating is easy."

It's impossible to forge entire newspaper copies archived in several libraries across the nation.

"So you think the US Presidency is something of minor interest that would not be worth the effort of usurp?"

Not on behalf of a half-white, half-black baby, born years before civil rights were born. .

"His actual birthplace is only part of the issue as you well know. Under SCOTUS decision, he doesn't meet the eligibility requirements to be President to begin with...hence the indepth misdirection and coverup."

I think I've sufficiently debunked your SCOTUS reference. Had you taken a few moments to fact check, you could have avoided that cyber-slap.

"So you claim the evidence -- admitted into court -- amounts to nothing... You also claim the evidence gathered by the Arizona Cold Case Posse is of no consequence...or words to that effect."

Well let me put it like this: I haven't seen the President being led out of the White House in handcuffs yet. Forgery is a felony across the land, is it not? The announcement made by Arpaio drew one day's worth of attention and then it fizzled like a hundred year old firecracker.

"Dan Rather lost his job and credibility for concocting false documents and presenting them as accurate..."

Dan Rather was given that information by CBS story producer Mary Mapes, who was fired for failing to properly fact-check the information supplied to her by former Texas Army National Guard officer Lt. Col. Bill Burkett – who in his own right, had misled the network about how he had obtained the information about Bush's military records.

"You are far, far out of your depth here, Al."

You need to take off the tin foil hat that you surely wear 24/7/365.

March 10, 2012 at 9:15 p.m.
rolando said...

Since you are back to your old ways of deconstruction, Al, I am back to just reading your first sentence/paragraph. Glad to see you are having so much fun...in your basement playing.

March 10, 2012 at 9:18 p.m.
hambone said...

Al, It's hard to make something foolproof.

"The odds against making something foolproof are directly proportional to the number of fools you are dealing with!"

March 10, 2012 at 9:27 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "You simple a$$, Al, the full text of what I cited is now all over Google. You are too stupid, too incompetent, and stuck in in-box thinking to do anything but call people names. As I said, go play with yourself."

That's your response? You're hopeless. I couldn't care less what is all over Google. It's pure bunk, and if you had a brain, you'd understand it.

"In the effort to deflect Minor's case from the 14th Amendment the court found it necessary to define the classes of citizenship. In so doing, it set precedent by defining "natural-born citizen". That definition still stands today."

You didn't go to the link I supplied, did you. That 1875 ruling most certainly does not stand today.

"The precedent defining "natural-born citizen" established in the Justia-wiped SCOTUS decision was never overruled and remain the law of the land even today. If you had any inkling or even a hint of the law, you would not make such outlandish claim...other than to support the usurper-in-chief."

OMG, you are utterly and hopelessly stupid. Go and read the Cornell digest of that SCOTUS decision and see if you can comprehend for one second what that case was about.

"Since you seriously doubt that Minor has not been cited in over a hundred years, cite your sources or ... well, we now how valuable your "doubts" are."

I can't prove a negative. You can however cite proof that it has, if indeed there are cases that quote that ruling valid today.

"The only part of the 1875 ruling that was "overruled" [merely mooted, actually] was the original error based on her sex. The legal and precedent-creating definition of "natural-born citizen" remains in the law to this day. [I evidently can't say that often enough trying to get it into your closed mind.]"

There was nothing established in that case to define how a natural born citizen was defined. At the time, there was no error in the ruling either. Women did not have the right to vote.

"Justia wiped -- or worse, modified -- quoted case law to eliminate or change all reference, however slight, from any other case that referenced Minor."

Justia did not wipe all references to the case. There are plenty of references to it online at many legal websites. Cornell was just one of them.

"To top it all off, the arrogant A wholes presented the remaining bits and pieces of the modified text as being full-test casefiles. All to make an English citizen eligible for the American Presidency."

Oh brother. You're losing it. Who the heck ever heard of Justia anyway? And you're alleging that they have now changed the course of history and every reference to the case?

You are totally delusional.

March 10, 2012 at 9:29 p.m.

Well, I'm glad you can admit you were in error about calling President Obama an English citizen. But you're not improving it by adding another error. Stanley Ann Dunham was born November 29, 1942.

President Obama was born August 4, 1961. That means she was actually over 18 by about 8 months.

So even if his mother being any age at all mattered to Obama being a US citizen (here's a hint, it doesn't!), you're still in error. And no, the date of conception doesn't matter in this case either, it'd be too rough an estimate anyway.

But hey, you want to look at some other facts? Why not try the officials in Hawaii who actually have authority over the genuine records who determined that the records they have are real? Are you saying they're lying, when they're the ones who have had physical access to the documents? But you trust someone like Joe Arpaio? Who has been found to have misused the power of his office? Against whom investigations have found that he misspent public funds in terms of millions of dollars?

And speaking of presidents, don't forget that Republicans have a penchant for trying to engage in dirty tricks and criminal behavior. Or did you forget about a certain man who went to China?

March 10, 2012 at 9:31 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "Since you are back to your old ways of deconstruction, Al, I am back to just reading your first sentence/paragraph."

Sure you are. You're going to slink off and pout in a corner like you usually do every time you are cornered with your ignorance. You'll not post for a week or two, then you'll come back with more crap to debunk.

'till then...

March 10, 2012 at 9:33 p.m.

I wonder if he'll go to Hawaii to personally inspect the documents.

I bet he could get Sheriff Joe Arpaio to pay for the trip.

March 10, 2012 at 9:39 p.m.
alprova said...

hwnb wrote: "I wonder if he'll go to Hawaii to personally inspect the documents."

He's certainly convinced of all that he writes.

"I bet he could get Sheriff Joe Arpaio to pay for the trip."

Joe Arpaio will soon be wearing a pink jumpsuit and flip-flops himself.

March 10, 2012 at 10:04 p.m.
alprova said...

To put this birther crap to bed, once and for all, the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the end-all definition used to define a natural born citizen, states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Since Hawaii is part of the United States, and was admitted as the 50th state in 1959, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural born citizen.

Further, A three-member Indiana Court of Appeals stated just last month, "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by United States V. Wong Kim Ark (1898), we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi in Georgia, also last month, stated, "The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that the children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Federal District Judge John A Gibney, Jr., of the Eastern District of Virginia, wrote in his decision on January 23, 2012, in the case of Tisdale v. Obama, "The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. It was well settled in 1898 that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark."

March 10, 2012 at 11:15 p.m.

But but, images posted on a website have been altered by an imaging program! Clearly that means the original documents must not be genuine!

Which, since the US Constitution has been digitally scanned and placed online, invalidates the whole US system of government.

Thus the facts speak for themselves, President Obama cannot be the President, since the United States does not legally exist, and has not since the Constitution was put online. This was no later than 2006, and may have been during the Clinton Presidency.

March 10, 2012 at 11:22 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Patiently waiting for KONY 2012 cartoon. Even the conservative regulars on this page can get behind this issue, because it involves bringing down a black man!

March 10, 2012 at 11:56 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

happy: But you're blaming that kind of thing on alcohol? Prohibition is so last century! The real solution is not to close the bars! Alcohol is cheaper than bullets. I liked your comparison to a corporation as I have thought the same thing. Just walk away and get an apartment but I am employed and bank of american would garnish my wages and keep the house. no bailout for the employed just the folks that bought the big house in the burbs. But I did not offer any solutions in my post only the oppertunity to observe a pattern of behavior. If I was offering solutions perhaps I would advicate the repeal of all drug laws that unfairly target nonviolent minority offenders. Getting the petty dealer/possesser out of prison to make room for the violent. To stop making criminals out of kids caught with a dimebag. That is an idea I could get behind. It would seem like a win win, lowering the tax burden brought on by incarciration, freeing up law enforcment/resourses and it would get those dealers off the corner by removing the money from a blackmarket trade. All while adding a taxable commodity to the market place. But that wouldn't let the politicion be tough on crime and cpd might loose a a few federal $'s for a couple new toys so I don't think that will happen. But there is still time for you to grad a bag of chips and come on down to the er lobby if you'd like to see what the aftermath of violence looks like. But don't fret about your safety while your here because we have 2 armed guards

March 11, 2012 at 12:01 a.m.
rolando said...

Albaby -- you are so totally wrong.

The 14th amendment does not address the definition of natural-born citizens. period.

Nor does Ark even consider it other than in passing in reference to historical English common law. Period

Contrary to your assertion, Ark neither granted natural-born citizenship to Kim nor did it make any such sweeping definition as you claim. You are in error. It was never "well settled in 1898 that those born in the US are considered natural born citizens". Never. Quite the opposite.

The definition of Minor stands; both parents must be US citizens for their child to be a natural-born US citizen under Section 2 of the Constitution.

Bottom line and the put-to-bedder is that Barack The Usurper is not now and has never been eligible to be President under the Constitution's natural-born clause. Period. He is and knows he is an Usurper.

The definition of "natural born US citizen" was determined, the legal precedent set, and became well-established law long after the 14th was passed.

The 19th does not address natural born citizens, per se. Read the final paragraph.

Both parents of a natural born US citizen must be US citizens.

That has been established law for over 100 years and has never been reversed or altered by any other US Supreme Court -- the only court of sufficient standing to make such a reversal. "Citizens" as used in the 14th means "members of a nation" distinct from a natural born citizen -- see Minor. They are two distinctly different things.

I would suggest that the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Administrative Law Judge in Georgia, and Federal District Judge John A Gibney, Jr., of the Eastern District of Virginia either have their own agenda or are abysmally ignorant of SCOTUS decisions on the meaning of the phrase so carelessly bandied about.

Either that or those judges, et al were depending upon Justia.com to give them the "full text case" info [wink, wink, nudge, nudge]

March 11, 2012 at 12:30 a.m.
rolando said...

You still around, Albaby, or have you gone awankin'?

March 11, 2012 at 12:38 a.m.
rolando said...

bulbs - The fact remains...and will always remain...Barack the Usurper does not meet the Constitutional requirements to be President. Period. He is not a "natural-born" US citizen...only one of his parents held US citizenship therefore he could not gain that all-important distinction. So he obscured it.

March 11, 2012 at 1:10 a.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "Albaby -- you are so totally wrong."

I think not.

"The 14th amendment does not address the definition of natural-born citizens. period."

Yes it does.

"Nor does Ark even consider it other than in passing in reference to historical English common law. Period>

Clearly you haven't read the case. It involved two Chinese citizens who were legally working in the United States, who downloaded a baby. The court ruled that the child was a naturalized citizen of the United States. That case, dating back to 1898, as was noted in my last post, is indeed cited as contradictory evidence in very recent cases related to challenges that the President isn't eligible to be President.

"Contrary to your assertion, Ark neither granted natural-born citizenship to Kim nor did it make any such sweeping definition as you claim. You are in error. It was never "well settled in 1898 that those born in the US are considered natural born citizens". Never. Quite the opposite."

You are not contradicting me. You're contradicting a Federal Judge. He us the one who cited the case. Now who do you think is more credible?

"The definition of Minor stands; both parents must be US citizens for their child to be a natural-born US citizen under Section 2 of the Constitution."

Nowhere in that SCOTUS decision does that wording appear. In fact, the Court wrote the following sentences into the decision;

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

Can you comprehend what that means? The Supreme Court did not define, definitively, nor did they want to, what a naturalized citizen was. It did not pertain to that case.

March 11, 2012 at 3:21 a.m.
alprova said...

"Bottom line and the put-to-bedder is that Barack The Usurper is not now and has never been eligible to be President under the Constitution's natural-born clause. Period. He is and knows he is an Usurper."

Good luck finding any judge in this nation that will substantiate your ignorant, weak opinion. Not one so far has done so. The count is 0 for 17.

"The definition of "natural born US citizen" was determined, the legal precedent set, and became well-established law long after the 14th was passed."

Nope. You're full of crap. Minor V. Happersett was not a ruling in which the Supreme Court defined a natural citizen. It was a ruling on whether or not a woman had a right to vote. That was the decision the court arrived at. Paragraphs written in the course of explaining the court's reasoning for arriving at a ruling are not considered binding decisions by the Court.

"The 19th does not address natural born citizens, per se. Read the final paragraph. Both parents of a natural born US citizen must be US citizens."

When has anyone claimed the 19th Amendment addresses natural born citizens? I sure haven't. Perhaps you meant the 14th. The last paragraph doesn't address natural born citizens. The first one does.

"That has been established law for over 100 years and has never been reversed or altered by any other US Supreme Court -- the only court of sufficient standing to make such a reversal."

The Supreme Court did not invoke your claimed definition into law, you putz. It even denied that any perceived definition of a naturalized citizen applied to that case. The only reason the phrase was even mentioned in the decision making process, was due to the fact that Virginia Minor claimed a right to vote due to her being a naturalized citizen in her complaint.

""Citizens" as used in the 14th means "members of a nation" distinct from a natural born citizen -- see Minor. They are two distinctly different things."

That's merely your interpretation. Nothing more.

"I would suggest that the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Administrative Law Judge in Georgia, and Federal District Judge John A Gibney, Jr., of the Eastern District of Virginia either have their own agenda or are abysmally ignorant of SCOTUS decisions on the meaning of the phrase so carelessly bandied about."

You can call them ignorant all day long, but I think that at least four of those judges have a wee bit more credibility and a whole lot more expertise in interpreting the law than you do.

"Either that or those judges, et al were depending upon Justia.com to give them the "full text case" info [wink, wink, nudge, nudge]"

For the record, the full text case, including the select quotations from the court taken out of context, making it's way around the web, is all there on Justia. Nothing has been "wiped."

March 11, 2012 at 3:22 a.m.
rolando said...

In short, I am quite aware that the issue will go nowhere...which does not translate to "I agree with you".

I consider the American people to have a right to know what our government is doing...what they do with that knowledge is beyond the scope of this thread.

I find it offensive in the extreme -- and a telling comment on our national media -- that a Communist-government controlled newsmedia is the only notable media to publish the fact that Barack The Usurper is an illegitimate leader.

This administration has witnessed, perhaps instigated, a complete change of who is eligible to become the president; from "A child born in the US of two citizens of the US" to "A child born in the US to one US citizen and one foreign citizen or even regardless of parental citizenship"...which would include all anchor-babies. Undoubtedly, a dual-citizen will be next.

The infamy of the deletion of all references to Minor et al prior to the 2008 election and its run-up to deliberately deny the American people access to or even knowledge of the probable ineligibility of Barack The Usurper is an offense of the first water. Committed by a sitting president, or even a sitting Senator, it indeed falls under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause regarding impeachment. But no such impeachment will be carried out until the Democrat majority in the Senate is uprooted.

Your choice of picking and choosing your quotes, by the way, is pathetic. Especially the misleading, cherry-picked quotes from Minor as well as your destructuring of comments.

The Court, in the full text of the opinion, defined "citizen" at some length; I will not quote it here since it is tedious; it can be read at para 2 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

I will, however quote in its entirety the pertinent part of that decision that defines "natural-born citizen"...the part you erroneously ignored:

[continued]

March 11, 2012 at 10:28 a.m.
rolando said...

[continued from previous post]

The text of Minor includes the following definition of “natural born citizen”.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Barack The Usurper falls into the category of "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts". So to claim without qualification that Barack The Usurper is undoubtedly a "natural born citizen" is merely wishful thinking.

The SCOTUS is the final legal arbiter and is not to be further challenged. Any court or proceeding acting against the SCOTUS is illegitimate.

March 11, 2012 at 10:29 a.m.
alprova said...

"In short, I am quite aware that the issue will go nowhere...which does not translate to "I agree with you"."

Well, at least you admit that this crap will never remove the President from office.

"I consider the American people to have a right to know what our government is doing...what they do with that knowledge is beyond the scope of this thread."

What you Birthers "consider" is of no consequence, as 17 court cases thus far have ruled.

"I find it offensive in the extreme -- and a telling comment on our national media -- that a Communist-government controlled newsmedia is the only notable media to publish the fact that Barack The Usurper is an illegitimate leader."

Read that sentence again and see if it makes sense to you.

"This administration has witnessed, perhaps instigated, a complete change of who is eligible to become the president; from "A child born in the US of two citizens of the US" to "A child born in the US to one US citizen and one foreign citizen or even regardless of parental citizenship"...which would include all anchor-babies."

Because no clear-cut definition exists to the meaning of a "natural-born citizen" anywhere, and because courts have ruled time and again, that the definition of a "natural-born" citizen does include anyone born inside of the United States, irrespective of where either parent was born, authorities in all 50 states have adopted the definition of a natural-born citizen to include all people born inside the United States...period.

"The infamy of the deletion of all references to Minor et al prior to the 2008 election and its run-up to deliberately deny the American people access to or even knowledge of the probable ineligibility of Barack The Usurper is an offense of the first water."

There has been nothing "deleted." You found it. I found it. Others have found it. It wasn't raised back in 2008, even though it could have been found then. That case is totally irrelevant in terms of defining anything other than the fact that in 1875, the Supreme Court ruled that no woman had a right to vote.

The words contained in the text of that case, with the exception of the ruling made in the case, are neither relevant or legally binding.

(Cont.)

March 11, 2012 at 12:30 p.m.
alprova said...

(Cont.)

"Committed by a sitting president, or even a sitting Senator, it indeed falls under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause regarding impeachment. But no such impeachment will be carried out until the Democrat majority in the Senate is uprooted."

I haven't read anywhere of one Republican Senator, or Congressman for that matter, who has even broached the subject of impeachment for Barack Obama, because he is not a natural-born citizen.

"Your choice of picking and choosing your quotes, by the way, is pathetic. Especially the misleading, cherry-picked quotes from Minor as well as your destructuring of comments."

Your whining about my decision as to what is worthy of a response is what is pathetic. My quoting of text in Minot v. Happersett merely puts the Birther chery-picked quotation back into the context of what was written about the subject.

"The Court, in the full text of the opinion, defined "citizen" at some length"

The Court did not define anything. It merely pointed out that a controversy existed in how a natural-born citizen had been defined over the years. It specifically refused to "solve" or offer an opinion for the purposes of that case because it was irrelevant.

"The SCOTUS is the final legal arbiter and is not to be further challenged. Any court or proceeding acting against the SCOTUS is illegitimate."

Look...Barack Obama was cleared through all 50 states and all of the United States Territories to be placed on the ballot to run for the office of the President of the United States in 2008.

Every court challenge made by a Birther to prevent that for the 2012 election, has failed miserably. Most of these lawsuits have been thrown out of court without a hearing.

When are you people going to give up the ghost? You're blooming idiots.

Clearly, you and others, don't know or understand that a Supreme Court ruling and written thoughts or explanations as to the reasoning behind a ruling contained in the text of a case heard by the Supreme Court, are two very separate and distinct matters.

A ruling by the Court is legally binding. It becomes the law of the land. But that ruling is limited to the scope of the case itself and the issue being decided.

The only legally binding ruling that came out of Minor V. Happersett involved the issue of whether or not a woman had a right to vote in 1875. The Court ruled that she did not.

That's it. Your argument to the contrary is nothing short of semantics.

March 11, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.

Rolando, your confusion of fantasies with facts does not make your twisted arguments genuine. There is no requirement that both of one's parents be citizens in US law, in fact if you read Kim Wong Ark, you'd see the reality. All it takes is being born on US soil, or failing that, to have one US citizen as a parent.

Alprova underestimates the number of decisions made counter to the birther movement. The real numbers is in excess of that. Of course, like most birthers, you probably use that to foster your fantasies. Your ego tells you that you know the truth, which means that those who disagree must be conspiring against you.

Also, the dissent in Ark...was predicated on international law. Since we know you oppose consideration of that, you cannot support the dissent.

March 11, 2012 at 7:14 p.m.

And here's another thing, judges don't use public websites for their legal opinions, they read law books or use legal databases.

Perhaps President Obama used his time machine to alter the publications!

And just so you know, Pravda Online is no longer controlled by the government of Russia, Communist or otherwise. It's an online tabloid now.

March 11, 2012 at 7:18 p.m.
rolando said...

We will stop when Barack The Usurper produces a real, original long-form birth certificate or a properly certified copy thereof from the State of Hawaii or allows one to be produced. All we have at this point is a copy of something that he claims is a real copy of his birth certificate...something demonstrated to be a PhotoShopped [or whatever] forgery of a long form something. This is pure BS he is feeding those who buy into his completely unsupported claims; this in the face of his known and demonstrated penchant of lying to the American people with almost every breath.

The only court that matters throughout this issue is the SCOTUS and they choose to remain silent, refuse to hear the case, or are prevented from hearing it.

The rest of your post is a mass of red herrings, Al [tu quoque argument].

In short, the direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent. Those pretending that the Supreme Court’s direct construction and definition (in Minor) of the natural-born citizen clause is dicta are mistaken. They need to review the first two points of the syllabus, which state:

"1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

"2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since."

Check the words "if born of citizen parents" again. They are stated at the very top of the syllabus and more than once in the Opinion of the Court. This is a direct holding of the case. It is clearly precedent. For it not to be precedent, the Court could not have held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. But since that determination was part of the holding, the grounds by which they made that determination are precedent, not dicta.

March 11, 2012 at 7:54 p.m.
rolando said...

bulbs, your light has gone out.

The Court in Wong Kim Ark did not expand the class of natural-born citizens defined in Minor. The simplest way to put it is thus:

If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, then the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)

That is the simplest way to accurately state the issue. Read it again:

If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, then the Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)

Since Wong Kim Ark didn’t fit into the class of natural-born citizens as defined by Minor, the Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant him US citizenship.

Once again, HOLDING EQUALS PRECEDENT

The direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent. Those, like you, who pretend that the Supreme Court’s direct construction and definition (in Minor) of the natural-born citizen clause is dicta are mistaken.

[Thaks for the heads-up regarding control of Pravda.ru. I found it surprising, all things considered.]

March 11, 2012 at 8:03 p.m.
rolando said...

"Conspiring against me", bulbs? Yeah, right. That's how libtards approach and react to thorny issues...just before they start with the name-calling, the insults, and the murder of messengers.

March 11, 2012 at 8:08 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "We will stop when Barack The Usurper produces a real, original long-form birth certificate or a properly certified copy thereof from the State of Hawaii or allows one to be produced."

You're not entitled to see any copy of his birth certificate. None of you Birthers are. He has produced copies of his birth certificate to the proper authorities who request them in order to qualify him to run for office. They were accepted. Case closed.

"All we have at this point is a copy of something that he claims is a real copy of his birth certificate...something demonstrated to be a PhotoShopped [or whatever] forgery of a long form something."

The man has coughed up more than any of you deserve. Nothing produced will ever be accepted, so why should he bother?

"This is pure BS he is feeding those who buy into his completely unsupported claims; this in the face of his known and demonstrated penchant of lying to the American people with almost every breath."

Blah...blah...blah.

"The only court that matters throughout this issue is the SCOTUS and they choose to remain silent, refuse to hear the case, or are prevented from hearing it."

Blah...blah...blah.

"The rest of your post is a mass of red herrings, Al [tu quoque argument]."

Yet, you cannot refute one single point.

"In short, the direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent. Those pretending that the Supreme Court’s direct construction and definition (in Minor) of the natural-born citizen clause is dicta are mistaken."

You are an elephant hanging off a cliff, clinging to a single blade of grass.

"Check the words "if born of citizen parents" again."

Check out the words, "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

"They are stated at the very top of the syllabus and more than once in the Opinion of the Court. This is a direct holding of the case. It is clearly precedent. For it not to be precedent, the Court could not have held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen."

Now you're comprehension skills are rising to the level that makes you a complete moron.

Her status as a U.S. citizen was never questioned by the Court. Her argument that as a U.S. natural-born citizen, she had an inherent right to vote, despite her gender.

The Court ruled, simply, that because she was a woman, she had no right to vote, as was the law at the time. Her claim that she was a natural-born citizen was totally irrelevant. It didn't factor into the decision making process of the Court's ruling.

Quit arguing semantics. The Court clearly stated that the definition of a natural-born citizen did not need any clarification, nor to be defined by the Supreme Court for the purposes of rendering a decision in that case.

March 11, 2012 at 8:28 p.m.
alprova said...

Chester A. Arthur went through this same crap when he was running for President. It was rumored that he was born in Canada rather then in Vermont.

Christopher Shurmann, a candidate in 1895, was claimed to have been born to parents with German citizenship. Because no clear definition existed of a natural-born citizen, and because he was definitely born in the United States, his candidacy was approved.

Charles Evans Hughes, who ran against Woodrow Wilson in 1916, was sired by a father from Britain, who had not naturalized by the time of his birth. He lost the election, but was allowed to proceed nonetheless.

Barry Goldwater, was born in Phoenix, Arizona before it was admitted to the United States.

George Romney, who ran for President in 1968, was questioned because his Grandfather emigrated to Mexico, taking his three wives and children. Romney's father married one wife while in Mexico, but neither parent renounced their U.S. citizenship.

John McCain was born in Panama to parents who both had U.S. citizenship.

Coincidentally and without objection by many people at all, John McCain has forever refused to provide a copy of his birth certificate to the press or any other fact-checking organizations to prove that he was indeed born in a hospital that was located in an area under U.S. military control at the time of his birth.

No lawsuits have been filed. Nobody fills forums with post after post, challenging his citizenship because he has not provided his birth certificate to any member of the public who feels that they are entitled to view it.

No. All this crap is heaped upon our current President. It's laughable. It's old. And it's getting real boring.

March 11, 2012 at 9:14 p.m.

rolando, if you want one, you can go to Hawaii today and get one, according to the laws of that state. All you have to do is receive an appointment to the appropriate department of the state government. Or at the least, you can question the authorities who do have access. Why haven't you gone there? Or gone to the White House, and looked at the actual document? Complaining about an image online being Photo-shopped is like complaining that the copy of the Constitution online is photo-shopped.

But you're complaining about name-calling and insults? Talk about somebody abusing others for doing something they already did. Do you have copper pots in your house, or are they all stainless steel?

And no, there was no expansion from Minor v. Happersett since it said nothing on the subject, it even said it was saying nothing on it. But Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen, that was the point of the ruling in the case. But no, President Obama must have traveled back in time to manipulate them.

That's the only explanation that fits your birther mind, isn't it?

March 11, 2012 at 9:28 p.m.
rolando said...

Regardless of how this all pans out, one thing is certain -- it is no longer necessary for our Presidents to be natural-born citizens...all they need is to be born in the US. Citizenship of their parents is immaterial, at least two SCOTUS decisions to the contrary.

As Al pointed out, Chester Arthur was not a natural-born citizen, as defined by the SCOTUS, when he ran for the Presidency...he merely buried that fact until it was too late. [His father was not a US citizen at the time.]

So there is precedent that US citizens with no [or only one] US citizen parent can become President. [Sure hope all you Progressives here are ready to seat a Mexican citizen's anchor baby as President.]


So now it all devolves into the question, "Was Barack The Usurper born in Hawaii?" My decades of federal agent training and experience indicates he is not. Why? Because he has done what Arthur did and completely buried his past. Why else? Because he presented as authentic a long form Birth Certificate purported to be a copy of his real Birth Certificate.

I say "purported" because two reputable sources have independently determined that the document appears to be PhotoShopped [or whatever] and is a fraud. Both sources are elected officials, at least one of whom has decades of law enforcement experience and the other entered the document [unopposed!] into evidence in court.

So the issue isn't dead yet, although it is notable that multiple lower courts, panels, etc within the US have ignored SCOTUS binding precedent with impunity...without a whimper from the so-call "press". [Other than Pravda, of all things.]

Either way -- without accepting anything but casting out the Usurper -- I suspect nothing will happen and the downgrading of the eligibility requirement spelled out in Section 2 of our Constitution has been eliminated...along with a number of other Sections.

Finally, we can't let that Comments count stand at 250...

March 12, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
rolando said...

Read Ark, bulbs. If Kim had been natural-born, as defined in Minor, then the 14th Amendment would not have been used as the basis establishing his citizenship. Simply being born here [or perhaps anywhere] of two US citizens would have secured his US citizenship without SCOTUS reaching to the 14th.

Your comment is yet another bogus attempt to ignore SCOTUS binding precedent...but you are not alone and your side will undoubted persevere, just as it did with Arthur. Don't feel to smug about that...wait for Barack The Usurper's other shoe to fall. He is only beginning. Also undoubtedly, he will win the election, one way or the other...but illegally in any case. And no one will say a word.

Ya know, next year at this time any post here criticizing him will be grounds for IRS interest, etc [that's already happened]. Continuing will eventually result in Homeland Security doing the Gestapo thing, declaring the offender a terrorist, and picking him up "in the dead of night, never to be seen or heard from again'. Or just shot out of hand.

March 12, 2012 at 12:52 p.m.

Yes, an image posted online is Photoshopped, so what's upsetting about that? Does that mean the original must be a fake? Perhaps that explains why the Constitution is false. Obviously the section about how they meant for only "White Men who have been Americans since before Time Began, and Protestants Too" to be President has been edited out by a vast conspiracy. They completely fooled everybody! Even the Encyclopedia I have that was printed before Obama's father was born!

But yes, any born citizen of the United States, no matter their parentage, can be President, as long as they are 35 years old and have been a resident for 14 years. The 14th Amendment was very specifically clear, and it repudiated the past exceptions which had been used to deny people citizenship on discriminatory grounds. The decision in Ark confirmed that, whereas the decision in Minor...had only the concern of voting for women, not for how anybody was born. The 14th Amendment merely disavowed the arguments that had been made to deny citizenship, it was actually the common law that originated birthright citizenship.

The more you try these fanciful articulations, the more you fail to do anything but discredit yourself.

As successes go, it's not much of one. But like Orly Taitz, even as you're told how wrong you are, just justify your own beliefs.

March 12, 2012 at 1:15 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando worte: "So now it all devolves into the question, "Was Barack The Usurper born in Hawaii?" My decades of federal agent training and experience indicates he is not."

You Sir, are too stupid to have been a Federal Agent.

"Why? Because he has done what Arthur did and completely buried his past."

You're full of crap. A New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, hired by political opponents, first attempted to put out the rumor that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old, which would make him ineligible for the Vice Presidency under the Constitution's natural-born citizen clause. When that story was disproven, Hinman spread a new rumor that Arthur was born in Canada, and that claim also failed.

"Why else? Because he presented as authentic a long form Birth Certificate purported to be a copy of his real Birth Certificate. I say "purported" because two reputable sources have independently determined that the document appears to be PhotoShopped [or whatever] and is a fraud."

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/29/fox-expert-says-obama-birth-certificate-is-legit/

"Both sources are elected officials, at least one of whom has decades of law enforcement experience and the other entered the document [unopposed!] into evidence in court."

Any rulings yet that substantiate any of their "expert" opinions and "evidence?"

"So the issue isn't dead yet, although it is notable that multiple lower courts, panels, etc within the US have ignored SCOTUS binding precedent with impunity...without a whimper from the so-call "press"."

You claim to have been a Federal Agent on one hand, and on the other, you don't know the difference between a SCOTUS ruling and reasoning supplied in a ruling that in no manner pertains to the case under consideration, even after being declared so by the Court.

March 12, 2012 at 11:58 p.m.
Porky_Ca said...

Man that's a ruff cartoon :)

March 17, 2012 at 1:15 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.