Rubio: Obama “doesn’t have the guts” to just say he’s not a 2nd-Amendment guy

posted at 12:11 pm on January 17, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Whether or not President Obama’s big display of “doing something” will have any real teeth to it – his proposals of reinstating an “assault weapons” ban and imposing a 10-capacity limit on magazines are nothing more than recycled ideas that have hardly a snowball’s chance in hell of making it through Congress, not to mention the boundless evidence of their impotence at actually curbing violence — but what was on full display on Wednesday was President Obama’s prevailing attitude about the second amendment and gun-rights advocates.

President Obama conspicuously avoided the term “gun control” during his speech on Wednesday, but certainly threw “common sense” around a lot and didn’t neglect to heavily disparage the gun lobby. All of this denigrating of the NRA’s motives, as if it isn’t a huge and voluntary organization through which millions of Americans have taken gun safety and concealed weapons classes (which has an effective and direct impact in preventing and deterring would-be crime, by the way) and as if they somehow don’t give a fig about children’s safety and just stubbornly want to keep Americans well-armed for the oh-so-uncivilized sake of it, is telling. What’s more, as much as President Obama says he wholeheartedly approves of our “rich hunting and sport shooting traditions,” that fundamentally misses what the Second Amendment is really about.

The tells weren’t lost on Sen. Rubio, who pointed out on O’Reilly last night that he thinks President Obama just doesn’t have the guts to come out with his true beliefs about gun control. Real talk:

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

If he did that, he would be admitting to violating the oath of office, and be subject to impeachment.

BobMbx on January 17, 2013 at 12:14 PM

MORE OF THIS PLEASE. GET IN THIS MOTHER-F$#@%’S FACE ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!!!

GhoulAid on January 17, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Obama is evolving didn’t you here?

Rocks on January 17, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Standing on the graves of dead children to usurp our Bill of Rights and in doing so diminish our ability to defend ourselves, our children and our freedom is all of the example anyone needs to understand the liberal agenda is not in our best interest.

Speakup on January 17, 2013 at 12:17 PM

And Rubio, who has sponsored legislation restricting protesting, free-of-free-speech-zones, and who favored SOPA, doesn’t have the guts to see he’s not a 1st Amendment guy.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 12:17 PM

The younger guys, like Rubio and Paul, are actually standing up. The “Leaders”, McConnell and Boehner, are sitting at the bar at the Beltway Country Club.

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Sorry, Rubio, could you speak up a bit, I couldn’t hear you OVER ALL THAT IMMIGRATION BULLSHIT YOU’RE PEDDLING.

rayra on January 17, 2013 at 12:19 PM

He also doesn’t have the guts to say abortion is murder.

nobar on January 17, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Standing on the graves of dead children to usurp our Bill of Rights and in doing so diminish our ability to defend ourselves, our children and our freedom is all of the example anyone needs to understand the liberal agenda is not in our best interest.

Speakup on January 17, 2013 at 12:17 PM

All the cool dictators are doing it.
http://www.grouchyconservativepundits.org/index.php?topic=10402.msg409947#msg409947

rayra on January 17, 2013 at 12:20 PM

And Rubio is turning out to be only slightly less RINO than the Oopa-Loompa he defeated to get his Senate seat but doesn’t have the guts to admit it.

wildcat72 on January 17, 2013 at 12:20 PM

I would love to see someone ask O the following:

Mr. President, your Vice President said that the other party wanted to put black Americans “back in chains”. If this is true, why are you trying to disarm black Americans? Do they not thave the right to defend themselves against tyranny? Or, was Joe just lying to low information voters and a lapdog media?

TedInATL on January 17, 2013 at 12:22 PM

No bho ‘doesn’t have the guts’ to EVER tell the truth about anything he has/is doing to take away our rights! bho is a spineless lying worm!
L

letget on January 17, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Obama is evolving didn’t you here?

Rocks on January 17, 2013 at 12:15 PM

If Obama is evolving he’s doing it backwards. By the time his “final” term is over he’ll be an amoeba.

wildcat72 on January 17, 2013 at 12:22 PM

God, how I hate these lying-a$$, limp-wristed liberals!

HiJack on January 17, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Rubio is highly over rated as conservatives go and it’s disgusting to see the conservative media’s adoration for him. There are RINO versions of the so called conservative media. Fox is one of them. And they may just be more dangerous to true conservatives than the leftist propaganda outlets, as they work from within.

voiceofreason on January 17, 2013 at 12:25 PM

President Obama conspicuously avoided the term “gun control” during his speech on Wednesday

Of course. The term du jour is now “Gun Safety.” The focus groups found this to be less intimidating.

It’s like how “Global Warming” magically became “Climate Change,” because the enviro-nazis got tired of looking like idiots every time one of their confabs got snowed out.

CurtZHP on January 17, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Obama is evolving didn’t you here?

Rocks on January 17, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Obama is a walking argument against the entire Darwinian system. For that matter, unfortunately, so were the last two elections.

The natural order is for everything to move from good to bad, and if this has not been amply demonstrated in the last seven years than by goodness I don’t know what could possibly qualify.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Rubio is highly over rated as conservatives go and it’s disgusting to see the conservative media’s adoration for him. There are RINO versions of the so called conservative media. Fox is one of them. And they may just be more dangerous to true conservatives than the leftist propaganda outlets, as they work from within.

voiceofreason on January 17, 2013 at 12:25 PM

RINOs are more dangerous than the enemy. And they are why the Republican Party is destined to become extinct.

wildcat72 on January 17, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Obama also doesn’t care about the first amendment, he’s all in for campaign contribution limits, using healthcare to trample religious institutions, etc..

Doesn’t care about the second amendment – right to bear arms.

Go through the Bill of Rights, tell me which one of them Obama supports.

Third Amendment??? Give him a chance, pal!!!

patch on January 17, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Most interesting thing about the O’Reilly conversation was that Rubio actually owns a gun. He doesn’t strike me as the outdoorsman type at all. And here I thought the whole inevitable Rubio pretends to go hunting photo op three years from now to pander to primary voters had Romney level cringeworthy potential.

Illinidiva on January 17, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Rubio: Obama “doesn’t have the guts” to just say he’s not a 2nd-Amendment guy

Mr. Squish talking about “Guts”.

Absolutely Hilarious!

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 12:32 PM

You have to laugh at Billo’s hubris. Well let’s just get you and Obama on he show for an hour and we’ll hash this out together. Ha!

can_con on January 17, 2013 at 12:33 PM

The natural order is for everything to move from good to bad, and if this has not been amply demonstrated in the last seven years than by goodness I don’t know what could possibly qualify.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 12:27 PM

The cause is obvious. Our current system forces people like me to have to fork over a confiscatory proportion of my income so that people like the Obamaphone Lady can reproduce to the point that I can’t afford a wife or kids.

So the Obamaphone Ladies out there have a dozen taxpayer financed children and people like us have none or few…

wildcat72 on January 17, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Nice to see the thread degenerate into an attack on Rubio. This is why we are now enjoying another 4 years of Obama.

dmann on January 17, 2013 at 12:35 PM

And Rubio, who has sponsored legislation restricting protesting, free-of-free-speech-zones, and who favored SOPA, doesn’t have the guts to see he’s not a 1st Amendment guy.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Links and specifics please.

Big John on January 17, 2013 at 12:35 PM

IMMIGRATION BULLSHIT

rayra on January 17, 2013 at 12:19 PM

It is people like you who will keep us from every winning the Presidency back.

Let me reiterate. It is people like you who will get us RINO after RINO as candidates.

Let me reiterate. You are screwing everything up because of your intolerance.

John the Libertarian on January 17, 2013 at 12:35 PM

The Times reports
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/01/the-times-reports.php

The New York Times reports an amazing discovery in the hysteria over assault weapons and puts it at the top of the article, Journalism 101-style:


One obstacle President Obama may face in proposing a new federal ban on assault weapons could lie in the use of the term “assault weapon” itself.

You see, there is an apparently lack of clarity over what constitutes an assault weapon. I hope the folks writing the Times editorials on the subject get wind of this amazing discovery. It’s almost enough to make you think they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Fact is there is no difference between the arms mentioned in the 2A and arbitrarily defined “Assault Weapons”

- It’s just the Dear Liar and the rest of the gun grabber’s way of destroying the right of self-defense while pretending to believe in the 2nd amendment.

Galt2009 on January 17, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Rubio holds his finger firmly in the wind …

Pork-Chop on January 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Our current system forces people like me to have to fork over a confiscatory proportion of my income so that people like the Obamaphone Lady can reproduce to the point that I can’t afford a wife or kids.

So the Obamaphone Ladies out there have a dozen taxpayer financed children and people like us have none or few…

wildcat72 on January 17, 2013 at 12:33 PM

I’m in the exact same ******* boat.

This is the end result of subsidizing reproduction, conservatives. I bet it sure sounded like a good idea at the time. End it and I promise you that you’ll be amazed at the ratio of babies being born to productive married families versus illegitimate brats born by single welfare queens.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Rubio on O’Reilley? He’s dead to me.

Mr. Arrogant on January 17, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Good move fools – bit*h about oneof the Republicans who actuall does appear to care about the 2nd amendmet. Wouldyou like him better if he blew off that amend asyou seem to think he’s doing to the 1st?

Sometimes I do wnder if the RINOs have a bit of a valid complaint about Conservatives – ifonly everyone elseas as pureas some on the Right seem to believe they are. The libertarian side of the Right need to accept that all Conservatives aren’t as rigid as they are.

katiejane on January 17, 2013 at 12:38 PM

The younger guys, like Rubio and Paul, are actually standing up. The “Leaders”, McConnell and Boehner, are sitting at the bar at the Beltway Country Club.

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 12:18 PM

…McConnell and Boehner?…is this the 11:41 AM “Impotence” thread…or did I get lost?

KOOLAID2 on January 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM

And Rubio is turning out to be only slightly less RINO than the Oopa-Loompa he defeated to get his Senate seat but doesn’t have the guts to admit it.

wildcat72 on January 17, 2013 at 12:20 PM

We might have have been better off with Crist. He’d have embraced amnesty too, but wouldn’t have given anyone else cover on it.

Jon0815 on January 17, 2013 at 12:41 PM

It is people like you who will keep us from every winning the Presidency back.

Let me reiterate. It is people like you who will get us RINO after RINO as candidates.

Let me reiterate. You are screwing everything up because of your intolerance.

John the Libertarian on January 17, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Yep.

VegasRick on January 17, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Good for Rubio. CALL OBAMA OUT!

portlandon on January 17, 2013 at 12:41 PM

KOOLAID2 on January 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Appropriate for either thread.

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Oblamer and his hack Just-Usses Sotomayor and Kagan and sellout traitor John Benedict Roberts simply don’t have time to be inconvenienced by some old Constitution and Bill of Rights thingy.

viking01 on January 17, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Nice to see the thread degenerate into an attack on Rubio. This is why we are now enjoying another 4 years of Obama.

dmann on January 17, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Exactly. We need to win the country back a piece at a time. Obviously the rest of the country isn’t into the social conservatives point of view but if we can at least get the reins of power and fix the economy and America becomes prosperous again, the Republicans/conservatives can pretty much work the rest of the issues with impugnity. But noooo, if you aren’t a hard right dogmatic idealogue like many here, why bother to even try. Hence, four more years of this POS Obama.

Big John on January 17, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Why stop at the 2nd Amendment? Is there an amendment, or constitutional provision, that Obama actually likes? Aside from the the 16th amendment, for obvious reasons.

milcus on January 17, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Rubio holds his finger firmly in the wind …

Pork-Chop on January 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM

lol…

Perfect.

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 12:47 PM

OT, maybe this is common knowledge but I just heard this today.

The US Supreme Court ruled in the 1930′s that sawed-off shotguns are not protected under the 2nd Amendment because they don’t serve a military purpose (US vs. Miller, 1939).

The conclusion, then, should be that ownership of AR-15 variants along with the standard issue 30 round magazines used by the US military is protected, no?

SPCOlympics on January 17, 2013 at 12:48 PM

I’m in the exact same ******* boat.

This is the end result of subsidizing reproduction, conservatives. I bet it sure sounded like a good idea at the time. End it and I promise you that you’ll be amazed at the ratio of babies being born to productive married families versus illegitimate brats born by single welfare queens.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Women on welfare who get pregnant should be presented a choice:

1. Leave welfare.
2. Sterilization so it doesn’t happen again.

Same deal for men who get a woman pregnant while on welfare.

wildcat72 on January 17, 2013 at 12:51 PM

OT, maybe this is common knowledge but I just heard this today.

The US Supreme Court ruled in the 1930′s that sawed-off shotguns are not protected under the 2nd Amendment because they don’t serve a military purpose (US vs. Miller, 1939).

The conclusion, then, should be that ownership of AR-15 variants along with the standard issue 30 round magazines used by the US military is protected, no?

SPCOlympics on January 17, 2013 at 12:48 PM

The military uses shotguns… And I guarantee you that special forces have used sawed off shotguns.

That court’s decision was wrong, but look at the year: 1939. By that time in FDR’s tyrannical president for life reign he’d packed the court with fellow socialists.

wildcat72 on January 17, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Nice to see the thread degenerate into an attack on Rubio. This is why we are now enjoying another 4 years of Obama.

dmann on January 17, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Agreed… Yes, Rubio is as airy as hell and yes, his primary goal is to become President because it sounds like a cool job. But there are much, much worse candidates. (cough… Krispy Kreme..cough, cough..Jon Huntsman..cough).

Illinidiva on January 17, 2013 at 12:54 PM

One of our folks stands up to the tyrant and calls him out and a bunch of “us” bash him for not doing enough. Just great.

VegasRick on January 17, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Links and specifics please.

Big John on January 17, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Link

Link

That bill has become law:

link

SOPA PIPA

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Women on welfare who get pregnant should be presented a choice:

1. Leave welfare.
2. Sterilization so it doesn’t happen again.

Same deal for men who get a woman pregnant while on welfare.

wildcat72 on January 17, 2013 at 12:51 PM

I’d vote for it, be proud of it, and cheer when it was enforced.

And tell me you wouldn’t sprout a nice big grin if you saw an irresponsible breeder being dragged off to a white van while screaming: “Hep! Heeep! They’s gonna stick needles in me and cut me and OH MAH LAWDY HEEEP!”

I’d laugh like a cartoon villan until they had to give me oxygen!

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Links and specifics please.

Big John on January 17, 2013 at 12:35 PM

The SERVE Act, which Obama signed into law

link

link

And Rubio supported SOPA/PIPA

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM

We treat Republicans who say things like this as though they are somehow special. It shouldn’t be that way. Rubio has just said what every last member of the GOP should be able to effortlessly articulate without a second’s hesitation. The fact that Rubio’s response (or Perry’s even more masterful response) gets attention is a sad indictment of 90% of the d-bags in Washington who call themselves “republicans.”

“If the president desires to infringe upon or eliminate the Second Amendment rights of Americans, then let him propose an amendment to the Constitution” should be part of the standard answer on this, along with contemptuous mockery for his pitiful distillation of the 2A to a “rich sporting tradition.”

SAMinVA on January 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM

One of our folks stands up to the tyrant and calls him out and a bunch of “us” bash him for not doing enough. Just great.

VegasRick on January 17, 2013 at 12:54 PM

See the Arizona Flip-flop and his ever changing stance on privatization of Soc. Sec. for starters.

Keep backing those pandering RINO opportunists….it worked so well with Romney (who I held my nose and voted for btw).

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM

The US Supreme Court ruled in the 1930′s that sawed-off shotguns are not protected under the 2nd Amendment because they don’t serve a military purpose (US vs. Miller, 1939).

The conclusion, then, should be that ownership of AR-15 variants along with the standard issue 30 round magazines used by the US military is protected, no?

SPCOlympics on January 17, 2013 at 12:48 PM

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

At least they better understood the purpose of the 2nd amendment in 1939.

Later SCOTUS decisions undermine this one, because the recent SCOTUS decisions have a warped understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

The Rogue Tomato on January 17, 2013 at 1:01 PM

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 12:38 PM

People don’t know the insanity until they’ve been involved.

My parents have been helping out a family for a few years – unmarried guy and gal with five kids (though, all with same mom and dad).

A few years ago, they decided to ‘make it official’ and got married. Almost immediately they lost their insurance and a large portion of their food stamps.

Nothing else about their situation changed other than the fact that they got married.

My dad (who’s about as liberal as they come) couldn’t believe it as he discovered more and more how the system is stacked to keep people unmarried and dependent.

He’s still a liberal, but, he no longer thinks welfare (as it exists right now) is there to help people get back on their feet as quickly as possible.

JadeNYU on January 17, 2013 at 1:04 PM

One of our folks stands up to the tyrant and calls him out and a bunch of “us” bash him for not doing enough. Just great.

VegasRick on January 17, 2013 at 12:54 PM

The problem is that Rubio likes to cherry-pick the issues on which he stands up to tyrant.

Pork-Chop on January 17, 2013 at 1:05 PM

All of you anti-Rubio people are such children, haha.

Calling him a RINO. Unbelievable.

nicktjacob on January 17, 2013 at 1:07 PM

The problem is that Rubio likes to cherry-pick the issues on which he stands up to tyrant.

Pork-Chop on January 17, 2013 at 1:05 PM

As opposed to the majority of the GOP who never stands up? I know he’s not perfect, but he’s not a liberal and he’s one of the few fighters we have.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Becoming less and less interested in this guy every time he opens his pie hole.

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 1:08 PM

The US Supreme Court ruled in the 1930′s that sawed-off shotguns are not protected under the 2nd Amendment because they don’t serve a military purpose (US vs. Miller, 1939).

The conclusion, then, should be that ownership of AR-15 variants along with the standard issue 30 round magazines used by the US military is protected, no?

SPCOlympics on January 17, 2013 at 12:48 PM

The two things to take away from this are:

SCOTUS acted unconstitutionally. First, the states did not give SCOTUS the power to judge whether legislation is constitutional or not. That was a power seized in Marbury v. Madison. Secondly, “shall not be infringed” is absolute, and the first point aside, it was an unconstitutional ruling.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:10 PM

All of you anti-Rubio people are such children, haha.

Calling him a RINO. Unbelievable.

nicktjacob on January 17, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Profound argument.

You really need to post more often.

lol.

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 1:10 PM

The military uses shotguns… And I guarantee you that special forces have used sawed off shotguns.

That court’s decision was wrong, but look at the year: 1939. By that time in FDR’s tyrannical president for life reign he’d packed the court with fellow socialists.

wildcat72 on January 17, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Yes, I know they use shotguns now; not just special forces but quite a bit by regular Marine and Army platoons in Iraq to open doors.

Anyway, in a sane world, the 2nd Amendment today would be interpreted as encouraging the citizenry to own and know how to use the most common sidearm and rifle used by the US Military, the ones used for basic qualification.

SPCOlympics on January 17, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Besides 0 has already demonstrated his contempt for the Constitution for all to see.

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 1:11 PM

All of you anti-Rubio people are such children, haha.

Calling him a RINO. Unbelievable.

nicktjacob on January 17, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Oh, he’s no RINO. He’s a Republican through and through.

That is, he’s a big government, interventionist statist.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Becoming less and less interested in this guy every time he opens his pie hole.

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 1:08 PM

He’s really starting to grate.

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 1:11 PM

The problem is that Rubio likes to cherry-pick the issues on which he stands up to tyrant.

Pork-Chop on January 17, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Because Rubio has been running for President since 2010 and understands that he needs to appeal to squishy voters?

Also, please don’t come back here and whine if in four years, you’re stuck choosing between the Clintons and Krispy Kreme. There are worse “RINOs” contemplating 2016 bids than the guy who ended the Oompa Loompa’s political career.

Illinidiva on January 17, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Oh, he’s no RINO. He’s a Republican through and through.

That is, he’s a big government, interventionist statist.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:11 PM

lol…DAMMIT I FRIGGIN’ HATE agreeing with Dante.

But based on current leadership…he’s aboslutely right.

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM

He’s really starting to grate.

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 1:11 PM

He just has to be a player in that GOP Establishment. Can’t seem to help himself.

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM

That is, he’s a big government, interventionist statist.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Meaning, with your definitions, that he’s not a fan of anarchy, has more balls than the French, and won’t let you do whatever you want to without legal consequence.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Also, please don’t come back here and whine if in four years, you’re stuck choosing between the Clintons and Krispy Kreme. There are worse “RINOs” contemplating 2016 bids than the guy who ended the Oompa Loompa’s political career.

Illinidiva on January 17, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Bob Dole.

John McCain.

Mitt Romney.

Fail.

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 1:16 PM

I’d go with Blue Buddha any day at this point.

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 1:17 PM

lol…DAMMIT I FRIGGIN’ HATE agreeing with Dante.

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Don’t assume that he and you are using the same dictionaries. Dante’s definition of ‘big government’, for example, is having more laws than the 10 Commandments…if that much.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Meaning, with your definitions, that he’s not a fan of anarchy, has more balls than the French, and won’t let you do whatever you want to without legal consequence.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Yes, yes. You’re one of the resident centralized authoritarians. Naturally you come to the defense of one of your fellow statists who itches to invade countries and overthrow their heads of state, just as you advocate.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:20 PM

I know he’s not perfect, but he’s not a liberal and he’s one of the few fighters we have.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 1:08 PM

The same argument used to be made about Christie – not so very long ago.

Rubio holds both conservative and liberal positions – he is inconsistent at best. Perhaps he is exactly what the GOP establishment wants – but we’ve been through this before – he’s a squish and I don’t trust him to fight for America. If Rubio were to dump his amnesty plan and demand that we enforce current immigration laws – and start standing up to democrats on every issue – then at least we would know that he is serious.

Pork-Chop on January 17, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Lew!!!

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Don’t assume that he and you are using the same dictionaries. Dante’s definition of ‘big government’, for example, is having more laws than the 10 Commandments…if that much.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Dante’s definition of big government is “the government that refuses to butt out of anything not covered explicitly by the Constitution”. There are some gray areas in his definition – I do like the idea of having NASA or national parks, for example – but other than that, I’m in full agreement.

Archivarix on January 17, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Yes, yes. You’re one of the resident centralized authoritarians. Naturally you come to the defense of one of your fellow statists who itches to invade countries and overthrow their heads of state, just as you advocate.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:20 PM

“centralized authoitarians”?

Do you make these terms up as you go along?
Your tin foil hat’s on waaaay too tight.

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Well pegged, Erika.

It would be useful to extend the analysis:

Barack Obama doesn’t have the guts to admit what he truly believes about anything.

He is a ruthless political operative and ideologue with allegiance to a philosophy so divergent from the founding principles of the American republic that it remains a miracle that the man could have been elected to lead transform this nation.

Clint’s odd stunt with the empty chair at the R convention got a lot of attention, less so his interview with a local paper where he spoke the bare truth (which it would have been nice to hear from the podium), Barack Obama is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon the American people.” He’s right.

Ask yourself why this administration sees fit to promote (or leak, if necessary) anything remotely flattering (whether true or not) about this President. Yet, his college records are considered a matter of national security, hidden away under lock and key. Any employer could ask to see them from any ordinary citizen. Yet, they are guarded at all costs by those who have dressed this 60′s revolutionary up and packaged him for American consumption (Axelrod Incorporated). One day, probably only in a book by an investigative historical novelist, we will finally get it… Bill Ayers was not just “a guy who lived in the neighborhood.”

The only one who has ever been willing to call him out, until now, has been Sarah Palin, who has been thanked by a fusillade of friendly fire from her own party and gender unseen in the annals of American politics.

IndieDogg on January 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM

If Rubio were to dump his amnesty plan and demand that we enforce current immigration laws – and start standing up to democrats on every issue – then at least we would know that he is serious.

Pork-Chop on January 17, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Marco Rubio showed his colors by cosponsoring SOPA and advancing his amnesty plan. I will no more support, or vote for, any puppet politician that has Bush’s hand sticking out his butt.

Archivarix on January 17, 2013 at 1:25 PM

IndieDogg on January 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM

A lot of truth in that. Say, didn’t you get that meme about Palin from the GOP establishment? She’s a quitter don’t ya know?/

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Do you make these terms up as you go along?
Your tin foil hat’s on waaaay too tight.

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM

No, he’s made up his childish definitions long ago.

It helps to understand that Dumbte is stuck at the mental capacity of a teenage anarchist. He sees ‘tyranny’ in everything that obstructs his merest whim, is a wannabe plantation owner, and accuses everyone of being a ‘statist puppet’.

All offline, of course, because IRL someone would have wrung his scrawny neck long ago.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Saw Rubio on O’Reilly last night and, frankly, he sounded pretty good to me. The guy is intelligent and articulate and is a hell of a lot more of a conservative than Cristie, McConnell, Boehner, McCain, Cantor, and on and on . . .

Also, I’m hugely against amnesty for illegals, but in listening to Rubio’s plan last night I’m open to listening to more. His method for dealing with the millions of illegals already here is a lot more vigorous than I previously thought. At least that is what I took away from his comments. I do still have concerns about birthright citizenship, etc. but, all in all, I’m open to seeing how he conducts himself in the immigration debate that is starting to heat up again now.

KickandSwimMom on January 17, 2013 at 1:26 PM

KickandSwimMom on January 17, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Reasoned and well written argument.

Personally…I have no trust for Rubio…particularly on immigration issues.

He’s been a windsock at best.

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 1:38 PM

After scanning the comments, it’s obvious, there are a few of us with common sense

The rest of you are either right wing nut jobs or Obots who want to destroy our party

Redford on January 17, 2013 at 1:38 PM

The rest of you are either right wing nut jobs or Obots who want to destroy our party

Redford on January 17, 2013 at 1:38 PM

lol…Hot Air Dating Game:

All of you anti-Rubio people are such children, haha.

Calling him a RINO. Unbelievable.

nicktjacob on January 17, 2013 at 1:07 PM

You establishment types really know how to discuss the issues…LMAO

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 1:42 PM

“centralized authoritarians”?

Do you make these terms up as you go along?
Your tin foil hat’s on waaaay too tight.

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM

You don’t know what a centralized, authoritarian government is, or one who favors such a thing? Really? Well, I’m sure you don’t since you defend Republicans constantly. You really should do some research regarding the founding of the United States and the formation of the federal government, and what it is and what it isn’t.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:45 PM

The rest of you are either right wing nut jobs or Obots who want to destroy our party

Redford on January 17, 2013 at 1:38 PM

I’d love to see the Republican Party (which is only one wing of the Establishment Big Government War Party) destoyed. Does that make me an “Obot”?

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Oh, I have. I also understand the difference between state’s rights and anarchy.

There are a lot of buzzwords you like to use that mean absolutely nothing to anybody but you.

People see you for who you are: an anti-American nutjob.

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 1:50 PM

I’d love to see the Republican Party (which is only one wing of the Establishment Big Government War Party) destoyed. Does that make me an “Obot”?

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:47 PM

lol…no…you’re obviously an anarchist who ever-so-rarely stumbles upon the truth.

But at least you’re consistent and believe what you spout…unlike current GOP leadership.

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 1:51 PM

I many times find those casting the RINO name calling, to be RINO’s themselves on many issues, by seeking a government solution to what you see as problems. A little less name calling a d a little more listening could help in ’14 & ’16.

Tater Salad on January 17, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Oh, I have.

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Then why did you ask if I made up the terms?

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:52 PM

State registration of firearms is illegal and infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens and serves no purpose, law enforcement or otherwise except for corrupt governments to take your means of defense.

TX-96 on January 17, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Because the terms you use make you sound like a 14 year old anti-American conspiracy theorist.

Oh, wait…

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 1:54 PM

God, how I hate these lying-a$$, limp-wristed liberals!

HiJack on January 17, 2013 at 12:23 PM

And the RINOs that won’t get in their face and stare them down. Every single Republican should be out there today talking about what a farce it was for Obama to hold a photo-op to essentially say that he’s going to start enforcing stuff that he should have been enforcing all along. Any real change is going to require Congress and they’re as responsive as Obama is to 3am phone calls telling him his Ambassador to Lybia is dead.

Happy Nomad on January 17, 2013 at 1:54 PM

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 1:54 PM

That doesn’t make sense. I correctl identified someone as one in favor of a centralized, authoritarian government.

You asked me if I made those terms up.

I asked if you had really never heard those terms before.

You answered that you had, and when asked why you asked me if I made them up, your answer is, “because they make you sound like a 14-year old anti-American conspiracy theorist”??? Really???

What’s the conspiracy? The federal government has grown in power; the states that have created the federal government have been cowed by its unconstitutional actions and power grabs, and have even been beaten into submission via use of force in an unconstitutional war and terror campaign. It is a centralized government that goes outside the framework of the Constitution and dictates what people can and can’t do, infinging on our liberties in doing so. That’s authoritarian.

You think this is tinfoil conspiracy???

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

You really should do some research regarding the founding of the United States and the formation of the federal government, and what it is and what it isn’t.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:45 PM

The founding of the United States included the enslavement of human beings, the lack of votes for women, and (for that matter) the idea that one had to have a stake in the nation to be able to cast a vote.

In short, diving back and claiming we need to go back to our roots is intellectually dishonest posturing. In short, you can’t simply reset the clock by a couple centuries and pretend that every premise on which the nation was founded was ideologically pure. And face it, all you really care about is making the nation into an isolationist nation under the idea of avoiding foreign entanglements. That might have worked in the last part of the the 18th century but it doesn’t work now.

Happy Nomad on January 17, 2013 at 2:02 PM

It is a centralized government that goes outside the framework of the Constitution and dictates what people can and can’t do, infinging on our liberties in doing so. That’s authoritarian.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

And here is the problem with your insane rants. Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, so what? You just bitch and whine that the government has too much power. You put forward truly insane ideas that will never come to pass. You advocate anarchy when that isn’t going to happen.

In short, you’re what they call in Texas- All hat and no cattle.

Happy Nomad on January 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM

You think this is tinfoil conspiracy???

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

I believe that your belief system,which you have foisted upon us in truckloads during your brif time here, including your anti-semitism and isolationism, most assuredly is.

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 2:14 PM

A little less name calling a d a little more listening could help in ’14 & ’16.

Tater Salad on January 17, 2013 at 1:51 PM

So you’re making the argument that we should play it EXACTLY like 2008 and 2012?

Love ya my brother…but I’m waaaaaay done with that game.

If I’m gonna lose…i’d much rather make a principled stand…and lose on MY terms…rather than losing being “Dem-Lite” (which, as history shows, is inevitable).

No more business-as-usual for this conservative.

Tim_CA on January 17, 2013 at 2:15 PM

I believe that your belief system,which you have foisted upon us in truckloads during your brif time here, including your anti-semitism and isolationism, most assuredly is.

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 2:14 PM

My belief system is neither anti-semitic nor isolationist. That aside, what does my belief system have to do with empirical observation that the federal government has grown in size, has seized powers not granted to it and become more centralized through the suppression of states’ rights and operating outside the bounds of the Constitution, and become authoritarian in denying and infringing upon our liberties? Absolutely nothing. This is just you being unable to discuss a topic because you don’t understand it and trying to attack the poster because you don’t understand his arguments and views and are unable to debate them using intellect.

Do you disagree that the federal government has grown in size, has become centralized at the expense of the states, and has become authoritarian? Do you think the current circumstances is the model of limited government envisioned by the framers and the ratifiers?

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Women on welfare who get pregnant should be presented a choice:

1. Leave welfare.
2. Sterilization so it doesn’t happen again.

Same deal for men who get a woman pregnant while on welfare.

wildcat72 on January 17, 2013 at 12:51 PM

No they shouldn’t! This is what’s wrong with America now. There should be no such choice. You’re playing the game. There should be NO WELFARE at all! Period! The money that funds it is acquired by theft!

air_up_there on January 17, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Lew!!!!

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 2:20 PM

No. This is me refusing to play your rhetorical games which you have become infamous for the pages of Hot Air.

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2