Fred says the Bush admin “overlawyered” the DC gun case

posted at 2:30 pm on January 16, 2008 by Bryan

It gets tough to blog about Fred. For the front page thumbnail do I choose a shot of red meat or a shot of Marblehead himself? Hard to lose either way, actually. And if I can find a messianic shot, well, I have to use that.

The Fred Thompson for President, South Carolina bus tour reached Spartanburg today, where the Law & Order TV star candidate fielded questions at Papa’s Breakfast Nook from Charlotte, N.C.’s WBT-AM radio talk show host Jeff Katz.

Asked his opinion of the Second Amendment and the Solicitor General’s request that the DC Circuit Court remand the appeal back to the trial court for “fact-finding”, the lawyer turned Senator from Tennessee said the Bush Administration was “overlawyering” and stated that he opposed remand and that the case should move forward to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Right on the money answer to a question that’s tailor-made and perfectly timed for the South Carolina primary. And a perfect way for Fred (and the other candidates, if they so choose) to distance themselves from the Bush administration without alienating conservatives or seeming to appease the left in any way.

It’s not the first time Fred has weighed on in Heller, so he can’t be accused of pandering. He’s saying what he actually believes.

The District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective “right” to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.

I’ve always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says – it guarantees a citizen the right to “keep and bear” firearms, and that’s why I’ve been supportive of the National Rifle Association’s efforts to have the DC law overturned.

By the way, Rep. Eric Cantor has a petition up at Save the Second.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The headline over at ABC:

Thompson vs. Everybody?

Now he’s just a big bully!?! WTF, what is it PEOPLE! No fire in the belly or too mean? Bottom line: Moderates and liberals are scared of teh Fredster and the red truck!

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM

Well he did end illegal immigration for a year just by staring south across the border from Arizona.

Bryan on January 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM

Translation: Fred isn’t being our buttboy. The gloves are off.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Look at what Hollowpoint says at the end of that comment. It’s the saying Fred! will lose ALREADY that makes me think you guys are defeatists.
Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 5:21 PM

No offense, but you’re starting to sound like the character “Oddball” in the movie “Kelly’s Heroes”

Don’t hit me with negative waves so early in the morning. Think that bridge will be there and it will be there. It’s a mother, beautiful bridge and it’s gonna be there. Okay?

(Bridge get’s blown up just before they get to it)

You see what sending out them negative waves did, Moriarty?

I’d like Fred to win. I really would. But nothing you or I can do or say changes the fact that it’s unlikely to happen.

Now if you all will excuse me, it’s time to go home and drown my sorrows… again.

Hollowpoint on January 16, 2008 at 6:01 PM

Bryan on January 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Niiicccceeee!!! Bryan you just solidified by man-crush with you!

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 6:02 PM

Hollowpoint on January 16, 2008 at 6:01 PM

“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”

Yeah! I’ll take it Hollowpoint and I’m better looking than Donald too!

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 6:05 PM

See, this is why I prefer Bryan’s comments Hollowpoint: “To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three tigers.”

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 6:08 PM

I’ve seen every debate and Rudy has never once supported workplace enforcement.

FloatingRock on January 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM

look at what he did and said when was on the federal level.

“Giuliani says the Administration stands behind its policy of deterring those who come to the United States illegally by holding illegals in detention camps, increasing border controls, and implying sanctions against employers who hire illegal aliens.” (Miami’s Channel 10 News, 2/25/82)

FOR OVER 25 YEARS, GIULIANI HAS CALLED FOR SECURING THE BORDERS, DEPORTING ILLEGAL ALIENS

When he was on the State level Bill Clinton would NOT deport the illegal aliens that were sent to him, Rudy was stuck with them, and had to figure out what to do with them..

Obviously what he did worked as he reduced crime, murder and welfare dramatically, even with the negligence of the federal government.

Chakra Hammer on January 16, 2008 at 6:16 PM

FOR OVER 25 YEARS, GIULIANI HAS CALLED FOR SECURING THE BORDERS, DEPORTING ILLEGAL ALIENS

Chakra Hammer on January 16, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Bzzzt. Next?

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 6:20 PM

I’d like Fred to win. I really would. But nothing you or I can do or say changes the fact that it’s unlikely to happen.

Sad, but true.

They don’t call the GOP “the stupid party” for nothing.

Centerfire on January 16, 2008 at 6:29 PM

Did you hear what he said?

The Federal GOVERNMENT IS DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT.

Chakra Hammer on January 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM

Hollowpoint on January 16, 2008 at 6:01 PM

Centerfire on January 16, 2008 at 6:29 PM

See what you started. GOP the stupid party? You stumping for Edwards at HotAir? You’re missing your constituency dude.

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM

They don’t call the GOP “the stupid party” for nothing.

Centerfire on January 16, 2008 at 6:29 PM

Just going around sprinkling this little gem in all the threads today?

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Did you hear what he said?

Chakra Hammer on January 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM

Yup:

I would do precisely what one of my predecessors did back in 1988, and that was Mayor, uh, Koch, Mayor Ed Koch. That was reissued by my immediate predecessor Mayor Dinkins and reissued by me. He signed an executive order called Executive Order 124. That executive order protects illegal and undocumented immigrants, in several respects, from being reported to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It basically says “If they seek to use city services that are critical to their safety and critical to the health and safety of other people, then they will not be turned in to Immigration and Naturalization Services”.

Oh, I’m sorry, did you miss that part?

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 6:44 PM

All these suddenly switched anti illegal immigration candidates will go right back to doing NOTHING once elected. Fred is the only adult in the room.

Mojave Mark on January 16, 2008 at 6:45 PM

See, this is why I prefer Bryan’s comments Hollowpoint: “To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three tigers.”

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 6:08 PM

Voters had their chance, but they blew it. What should’ve been an easy win for Fred- who was very strong in the polls when he announced- turned into a huge disappointment. Not because of bad policy, but because… he isn’t slick and pretty enough.

Instead we’ll almost certainly get McAmnesty, FlipFlop Mitt, or Huckster. And I’ve given up caring which one it is.

“This guy’s a loser. Here I am sitting in his headquarters. I’m drinking his scotch. I’ve even got one of his broads hanging around here somewhere. The guy’s a born loser… but you, gentlemen, have not buried him yet.”

Hollowpoint on January 16, 2008 at 6:50 PM

See what you started. GOP the stupid party? You stumping for Edwards at HotAir? You’re missing your constituency dude.

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM

You accuse me of stumping for Silky??? THE WEDDING IS OFF!!!

The GOP is being stupid. They abandoned the principles of the Republican Revolution and replaced them with big government, pork and amnesty. It cost them in ’06, and now it looks like it’ll cost them again in ’08 because they just won’t learn.

Hollowpoint on January 16, 2008 at 6:53 PM

Oh, I’m sorry, did you miss that part?

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 6:44 PM

Yea, since the Federal Government is negligent on their responsibility of enforcing the border and deporting illegal
aliens that are sent to them, Mayors are forced into a position of figuring out on what to do with them.

Obviously, what he did was correct, as Crime, Murder and Welfare ALL dropped despite the Federal Governments negligence to Stop Illegal Immigration and to deport the illegals that were sent to them.

Chakra Hammer on January 16, 2008 at 7:04 PM

No, dude, and you know it. You tried to cover up your out-of-line comments by showing false concern, and pretty much everyone saw it.
MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 5:19 PM

You’re all wrong. You WANTED to believe that so that’s the direction you went.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 5:20 PM

You guys did what you always did. You read a comment, made an assumption, and then tried to force my intentions to fit your desired reaction.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Oh Hollowpoint, I was talking to Centerfire. I wouldn’t accuse you of stumping for Edwards, sheesh. I need to make my qoutes and comments clearer, I keep having to sweep up after myself. My apologizes for the confusion.

As for agreeing that the GOP is stupid, again I’ll play Oddball, why do you need to go lock yourself in a closet and let the moderates play? Dude, you go out and take your party back. If you don’t, then we might as well start latching on to the Big Government Agenda because we’re gonna get it.

I have quite a few liberal friends. I’m proud to say I’ve converted a few. They won’t tell the rest of their friends and family members, because they’re afraid of getting beat up but they say, “no ones in the room when I pull the lever.” For life-long Democrats, that takes balls. The way I change their minds is starting little, i.e. local. They don’t like what’s happening in their community. I point out that they can do something about that if they went down to their city council meetings. Funny thing is how many of your city council members move on to supervisor, then to state senator, then to U.S. rep, then to U.S. Senator. Do you know the political affiliation of your city council members? The ones who turn your city into crap? Yea, they’ll be your next U.S. Senator running for President. Start small, keep the crap out of the city, then it can’t filter up to the federal government.

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 7:07 PM

You’re all wrong. You WANTED to believe that so that’s the direction you went.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM

Ignored what I quoted, eh? “Couple of donuts away from being a two bagger” is just concern?

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:08 PM

Obviously, what he did was correct

Chakra Hammer on January 16, 2008 at 7:04 PM

Yep. And perfectly in line with sanctuary city policy. Viva Rudolfo!

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:09 PM

Even if she does suffer from Bell’s Palsy. It may be temporary
azcop on January 16, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Bells palsy is not always temporary. It can be exacerbated by stress. That was my point. She should see a doctor and if needed get treatment. Staying home with the kids would be less stressful and would help with her recovery. I described her facial physical appearance and how Bells palsy could cause the conditions I noted.

why would one want to involve the candidate’s family members into a conversation.

Ahhhhh. Now we get to the crux of the conversation….It’s ALWAYS the rabid Fredheads that drag Jeri into the mix. And don’t pay attention to Madison. His problem started several months ago when the Fredheads were first starting to push Jeri as a reason to vote for Fred. Their comments that she was “hot” etc were challenged. Since then they have tried to play the absolute moral authority card that Jeri is off limits.

Meanwhile, in the MM/KP thread, we have people wanting to see MM & KP in a mud wrestling match.

Nice.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:15 PM

You guys did what you always did. You read a comment, made an assumption, and then tried to force my intentions to fit your desired reaction.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:07 PM

So now it’s us against you, huh? Sad.

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 7:19 PM

And don’t pay attention to Madison.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Yeah, don’t pay attention to me. I do underhanded things like link to the thread in question and post unedited excerpts of what csdeven said in that thread.

I’m so devious.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:22 PM

Since then they have tried to play the absolute moral authority card that Jeri is off limits.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Family members ARE off limits, at least to people who aren’t/weren’t consumed by hatred for a candidate.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Ignored what I quoted, eh? “Couple of donuts away from being a two bagger” is just concern?
MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:08 PM

Liar. Try context.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:26 PM

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Then I expect you to lead the charge on condemning the comments that use Jeri as a reason to vote for Fred.

If her hotness is a reason, then her hotness is fair game. If her political expertise is a reason, then that is fair game also.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:28 PM

So now it’s us against you, huh? Sad.
RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 7:19 PM

hahaha

Don’t flatter yourself. You know as well as I that “you guys” refers to those who were attacking me for rejecting the idea that Jeri is “hot”.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Liar. Try context.

Truth is not the goal here.

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 7:34 PM

No, csdeven, what I know is that you addressed the following comment to me:

You guys did what you always did. You read a comment, made an assumption, and then tried to force my intentions to fit your desired reaction.

This guy did not respond to you in the thread in question, but I was sure there reading it as it unfolded. Michelle Malkin herself condemned the things you said there. To try to put me on the defensive by suggesting that I am flattering myself is disingenuous — at best.

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Just released – New Bush coins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guKAe64UeYk

menoname on January 16, 2008 at 7:38 PM

If her hotness is a reason, then her hotness is fair game. If her political expertise is a reason, then that is fair game also.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:28 PM

Her hotness is tongue-in-cheek, and again, YOU KNOW IT. Either admit you’re unusually dense or quit playing innocent. I’m guessing the latter.

Liar. Try context.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:26 PM

Here’s the context.

Or, the woman could be a couple of donuts away from being a two bagger. One bag for her head and the other one to puke in.

csdeven on November 21, 2007 at 1:52 AM


Here’s the link.
Go to your search function and put in exactly what I quoted. I didn’t edit a thing. You said this, you know what you meant, and you know you crossed the line. The only question is whether you care. I’m guessing no. And don’t ever call me a liar again unless you can show that I posted something I knew to be false.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Truth is not the goal here.

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 7:34 PM

I copied and pasted exactly what he posted. Please don’t make the same baseless assertation.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Truth is not the goal here.
Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 7:34 PM

Thanks for pointing that out.

I actually agree with Fred on the second. But, I don’t think the second is as effective as it was at one time. Nor do I think it will ever get back to be effective in it’s original intent.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:43 PM

Or, the woman could be a couple of donuts away from being a two bagger. One bag for her head and the other one to puke in.

or: (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be.

could: (used to express possibility): I wonder who that could be at the door. That couldn’t be true.

I never said she absolutely was a two bagger. So, when can we expect the next bit of sexual innuendo leveled towards MM?

I’d like to be on topic of their discussion, but the fact that they’re two of the sexiest women on earth bring to mind one thing.

Let’s settle this with a mud wrestling match.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 6:23 PM

Oh, that’s right. You already have.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:47 PM

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:40 PM

My statement isn’t baseless. Are you really trying to get CS to say, you know what MC, you were right? Is that your goal? Or do you just want him to say his statement was tongue in cheek? Moreover, if he did say that (the first) would you believe it? Of course not. Your opinion is formed. Which leaves the question of why you are going through this whole episode again when he has changed the nature of his dialogue here out of respect to our hosts. The answer to that question is the why, that’s your goal.

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 7:49 PM

Yep. And perfectly in line with sanctuary city policy. Viva Rudolfo!

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:09 PM

Thats fine as an attack, but it doesn’t address the federal governments negligence, the federal government really forced him into that policy, OR let 1000’s of Crimes go unreported and let 1000’s of kids roam the streets, the feds would not deport them..

It’s nice for some schmuck senator that has had NO Executive Experience to complain about something that he has no experience with.

Chakra Hammer on January 16, 2008 at 7:50 PM

I never said she absolutely was a two bagger.

Very nice. Aiming for a career in politics?

So, when can we expect the next bit of sexual innuendo leveled towards MM?

So you’re comparing an obviously facetious suggestion of a mud wrestling match about a political pundit I described as sexy, to a description of a candidate’s wife as being “a couple of donuts away from being a two bagger. One bag for her head and the other one to puke in.”

The fact that you’re still defending that statement punctuates this. You stay classy.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:53 PM

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 7:43 PM

I assume you would make that argument based on technological advancements yes? If so, I offer this as a counter. The sheer numerical nature of the citizenry makes arms a deterrent to tyranny regardless. It’s a poor analogy, but somewhere along the lines, 5 guys with spears killed a woolly mammoth. The 2nd secures that a unified citizenry could overthrow a tyrannical government. Hence Shaw’s Reb and the Civil War in no way undermined the strength of the 2nd in purpose.

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Pardon my typo. Shaw’s should be Shay’s

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 7:57 PM

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 7:49 PM

It’s because ever since that little episode, he seems to have calmed. The fact that referencing it has thrown him into a defensive bout of calling people liars makes me wonder whether this new leaf he’s turned over is just a hiatus of that behavior. I was hoping he would do the former you suggested. Instead, he used the opportunity to call me a liar, and you implied your agreement with that. I did not lie, and I posted proof. Excuse me if I don’t like BASELESS assertations.

It’s nice for some schmuck senator that has had NO Executive Experience to complain about something that he has no experience with.

Chakra Hammer on January 16, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Your candidate has executive experience in implementing sanctuary policies. Mine does not. I’d prefer the latter.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Hence Shaw’s Reb and the Civil War in no way undermined the strength of the 2nd in purpose.

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Shaw’s Rebellion? Would that be when Robert Shaw got drunk and ad-libbed the USS Indianapolis scene in Jaws?

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Forget what he said…that lens flair was awesome! I was going to vote for Obama, but now that I’ve seen Fred’s lens flair…I’m for him now!

AUINSC on January 16, 2008 at 8:15 PM

Shaw’s Rebellion? Would that be when Robert Shaw got drunk and ad-libbed the USS Indianapolis scene in Jaws?

No, sorry it was a typo.

It’s because ever since that little episode, he seems to have calmed. The fact that referencing it has thrown him into a defensive bout of calling people liars makes me wonder whether this new leaf he’s turned over is just a hiatus of that behavior. I was hoping he would do the former you suggested. Instead, he used the opportunity to call me a liar, and you implied your agreement with that. I did not lie, and I posted proof. Excuse me if I don’t like BASELESS assertations.

I’m not calling you a liar. I am saying your motive isn’t the truth. Therefore the truth is irrelevant in what you and he are doing here. You brought the subject up as a reference, inviting him to defend himself. My suggestion to him, in short terms, was that a defense ,factual or not, is not worth the effort, partly because his own behavior since has been worthy no complaint and he uses frequently self-deprecating humor at the previous incarnation and partly because the motive here is not to come to some sort of understanding of the past. The motive here is to use the past. Surely you recognize you are doing this.

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Forget what he said…that lens flair was awesome! I was going to vote for Obama, but now that I’ve seen Fred’s lens flair…I’m for him now!

AUINSC on January 16, 2008 at 8:15 PM

Gold!

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Er, it would appear that something I said was the catalyst for this episode being brought up. May I be the one to close the subject again?

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 8:24 PM

You brought the subject up as a reference, inviting him to defend himself.

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 8:20 PM

I invited nothing. I referenced a well-known event, as confirmed by a quick response by someone who did. As you said, he uses frequently self-deprecating at his previous incarnation, so I figured referencing something he and I both know happened would not cause him to claim it didn’t happen. I don’t like being told I’m stating untrue things, so I posted a link to the event. He accused both me and someone else of being part of some vast not-csdeven-wing conspiracy and called me a liar. That was an unwarranted and baseless claim, and he refuses to admit it. As he supposedly has a “new incarnation” I expected him to have the decency to admit his mistake in calling me a liar. Apparently, I was wrong twice in judging his integrity.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 8:26 PM

Er, it would appear that something I said was the catalyst for this episode being brought up. May I be the one to close the subject again?

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Very well, but do it with panache.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 8:27 PM

If juvenile is fun, then yeah you missed a fun one.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Well, it was fun while it lasted….

steveegg on January 16, 2008 at 8:30 PM

Subject closed. Back to LoveFest!

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 8:31 PM

Subject closed. Back to LoveFest!

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 8:31 PM

Well, either get tickleddragon back in here…or I’m gonna have to settle for you!

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 8:34 PM

Subject closed. Back to LoveFest!

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 8:31 PM

Oooo…I get back home just in time for the continuation of the lovefest. Yay!

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 8:34 PM

Fred is the man I tell ya!
Eight years of his uncommon sense would sure do the country some good.

TheSitRep on January 16, 2008 at 8:34 PM

Wow that WAS good timing!

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 8:35 PM

Wow that WAS good timing!

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 8:35 PM

Yay! *gets out the paddle*

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 8:35 PM

Well lookee here! I’ll go get Entelechy…

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Well lookee here! I’ll go get Entelechy…

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Sounds like a party to me. Where’s doriengray?

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 8:43 PM

Where’s doriengray?

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 8:43 PM

I haven’t been reading too terribly much today, but I don’t think I’ve seen him today. He may be over at LGF…or maybe even at his job, hee hee.

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 8:46 PM

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 8:26 PM

In respect to RB 8:24, (which I think would suit us very for the future as well regarding that past thread), I’ll leave my answer to this: Your 2nd sentence is the one relevant. Why the reference? The intent is the motive. The motive is the goal. That’s my point. CS recognizes it (as you can see at 7:43). Having said that, subject closed on my end. If you want the last word, I’ll leave it unanswered on this subject and this thread.

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 8:46 PM

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 8:46 PM

My response is I’m going to start calling you Dr. Phil and Johnny Cochran depending on your responses.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 8:53 PM

I haven’t been reading too terribly much today, but I don’t think I’ve seen him today. He may be over at LGF…or maybe even at his job, hee hee.

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 8:46 PM

I’ve not seen him in a while either. Hmmmm.

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 8:54 PM

Wow..can I kill a thread or what?

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 9:01 PM

Wow..can I kill a thread or what?

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 9:01 PM

We tried…I think this one was doomed. I for one am off to the liquor store to stock up for Saturday night. See everyone there!

RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Why can’t I get GQ guy with the mind of some of these guys. It’s devastating. One of my guy friends told me that I use HA for fourplay.

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Ahem… GQ guy here……

Possibly willing to relocate…

[gets out duct tape to fix suitcase]

Mcguyver on January 16, 2008 at 9:37 PM

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Yes, but only in the sense that the government would go further than we would. I doubt the US government would bring it’s full force to bear on the citizens, so it could be argued that the 2nd does provide us a bit of recourse.

But if they did decide to go after us with every weapon in the arsenal, there really wouldn’t be much we could do about it.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 9:48 PM

But if they did decide to go after us with every weapon in the arsenal, there really wouldn’t be much we could do about it.

Yes, I agree, but two thoughts. For the government to bring it’s force on the citizens, it has to do it by citizens (military or governmental). And I think at that stage it’s self-defeating. With those weapons, what is left to be governed.

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 10:13 PM

Mcguyver on January 16, 2008 at 9:37 PM

Ouch! San Antonio, huh? Being that I’m a hugh Lakers fan, that might take some warming up to for me.

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 10:22 PM

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 10:13 PM

I agree. I’ve tried to make that argument to some 2nd amendment nuts a few times, but they accuse me of putting too much faith in my fellow man. I don’t see how the government could do much harm to us because I trust my neighbors would never take up arms against me.

I like owning guns. It makes me safe that I have them. Not safe from the government because I don’t fear them in a military sense. I feel safe from the bad guys that might hurt my family.

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 11:41 PM

csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 11:41 PM

“but they accuse me of putting too much faith in my fellow man.”

Perhaps I’m guilty of that. Either way, I’m glad to live in a nation where we can talk about these things in the hypothetical.

Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2008 at 12:22 AM

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 10:22 PM

I saw your “schedule”, argh!

There was a day when I proposed to start a I-hate-the-Lakers-club, seriously!

I saw this guy who had a hand printed sign in truck window, “I HATE THE LAKERS!”
So I thought, SWEET! I followed him until he parked and I pitched the proposal to him! Funny.

But soon after that the three bully gang (shaq, meshaq Kobe and abendigo any Laker) split up and of course the rest is history.

4/10 of a freaking second! Give me a freaking break! I can count to three thousand every time that is replayed! Jackasses.

Sadly with the advent of the what’s his name (gambler) that got arrested and the bullshit calls from the same, pretty much stole my interests in the game. I rather go fishing or read a book.

Here’s my favorite quote from that era: NBA = Narcissistic Basketball Association, a three ring bully presentation that Barnum and Baileys would be proud of.

Mcguyver on January 17, 2008 at 12:26 AM

Mcguyver on January 17, 2008 at 12:26 AM

You’re just trying to bait me. You seriously don’t want to talk sports (of any kind with me). You think I’m opinionated about politics!?!

So I take it you put the duct tape away. I’m sure there are much better uses for it.

Sultry Beauty on January 17, 2008 at 12:44 AM

SECOND LOOK AT MY BAITING KILLS!

Mcguyver on January 17, 2008 at 12:51 AM

sorry.. KILLS = SKILLS

Mcguyver on January 17, 2008 at 12:51 AM

I have many pwetty colors of duct tape…
I can make a rainbow for you…

Mcguyver on January 17, 2008 at 12:53 AM

Mcguyver on January 17, 2008 at 12:53 AM

Dude, I just got back from tae kwon do class where I was sparring and practicing disarming men with knives. I don’t care about the colors. You got the wrong girl, especially if we’re talking rainbow colors.

Sultry Beauty on January 17, 2008 at 12:57 AM

FUNNY!

Mcguyver on January 17, 2008 at 1:00 AM

I am often misunderstood and rarely comprehended.

Mcguyver on January 17, 2008 at 1:01 AM

Mcguyver on January 17, 2008 at 1:01 AM

Funny, I’m often comprehended and rarely misunderstood. *scratches head*

Sultry Beauty on January 17, 2008 at 1:11 AM

So sports nut expert… huh?

Nah.. could be interesting for me if I thought that the issue of role models could be more straight forward.. like everybody follow the Spurs example and stop acting like a bully for Pete’s sake.

The Lakers/Spurs match up is what turned me off sports, sad to say.

Yeah David R. did act too holier-than-thou sometimes (he’s an associate paster now) but still, the damn refereeing was so over-the-top bad, it’s sick.

I mauled too many pillows to go back there now.

Mcguyver on January 17, 2008 at 1:26 AM

Your candidate has executive experience in implementing sanctuary policies. Mine does not. I’d prefer the latter.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Your candidate, likes to lobby give legal advise to dictators and terrorists..

And he was also registered as a foreign agent, makes one wonder where his loyalties are..

Manchurian Candidate.

Chakra Hammer on January 17, 2008 at 1:34 AM

Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2008 at 12:22 AM

IMO, a good thing to be guilty of.

csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 1:35 AM