Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank Rich "State-Sponsored Terrorism!" (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Their gun votes got universal background checks (27+ / 0-)

    and magazine limits - that's what their support of gun safety yielded. And they and I would do it again.

    And a fluke of a recall from a group of deranged loons who think the recall process is a way to settle policy differences is the response they got.

    The gun lobby could only get two of the 19 who voted for gun safety legislation. TWO and one of them was recalled by less by 300 votes. Turnout for the vote was about 10%.

    What a pathetic showing by the so-called big bad gun lobby.

    I thought there was supposed to be a wave of fear and the gun supporters were going to crash like a mighty wave over the country side and sweep the Constitutional trampling scum out of office.

    Honestly, I expected more from the raging gun supporters.

    What happened?

    The pro gun folks read far too much into those recall elections.  

    •  So you didn't support Walker's recall? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, Norm in Chicago

      I know I did.

      If it's an overestimation, it looks like it's not just the pro-gun folks who are doing it. Gun control at the federal level and in states that aren't Cali/NY style looks DOA.

    •  "group of deranged loons" otherwise known as (0+ / 0-)

      "voters".

      Shocking you cost the Democratic Party so much of those.

      But yeah.....the first & second recalls in a state that has never had so much as a single successful recall petition in its 137 year history;
      Managing to lose Democratic incumbents in Democratic precincts in an election in a non-election year.....with a 6-1 spending advantage.
      Big deal, amirite?

      "What happened?"
      You.
      Glad to see you are proud of losing elections. In 2014 you will be positively beaming.
      Fortunately, the party will be somewhat less impressed with your 'big winner' of an issue.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:14:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What happen? Universal background checks (0+ / 0-)

        happened - that's how politics works, Frank. And we've already establisehd you're an utter hypocrite - you're claim that you don't want to take liberties away from innocent Americans is a crock - you vote for politicians (Kerry, Obama and I;m sure others) who take innocent Americans liberties away. So, you think you can decide for everyone what liberties are important and which are not.

        Grow up and leave the delusion libertarian utopia that only exists inside your own head.

        Those who would sacrifice integrity for a cheap tagline deserve neither.

        •  Magazine ban happened & then recalls (0+ / 0-)

          happened - that's how politics works, WeShallOvercome.

          "you're [sic] claim that you don't want to take liberties away from innocent Americans is a crock"
          No, it isn't. But you are right to be ashamed that you do.

          "leave the delusion [sic] libertarian utopia"
          Oh sure. If there is anybody libertarians admire its FDR.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:36:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure, just blow past the BS that is your (0+ / 0-)

            "position"

            If you can't square your hypocritical contradiction about "taking innocent American liberties away" you can't really have a serious opinion on gun safety. I'm sure that won't stop you though in your confused FDR/libertarian/Rand Paul universe that bears no resemblance to reality. Rand Paul is a big pro gun supporter, remember. You can Rand seem to be like two peas in pod.

            •  I can & I do. (0+ / 0-)

              Further there is nothing hypocritical nor contradictory about my position.

              "confused FDR/libertarian/Rand Paul universe"
              Somebody is confused. Very confused.
              Do tell how you just juxtaposed FDR & libertarians.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:45:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Right on cue, move on to denial .... (0+ / 0-)

                I'm not a hypocrite - you are. Great argument.

                You say you support politicians who don't take liberties away, and then you vote for politicians who take liberties away.

                You can't pick and choose what liberties are important and what liberties are not.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty (ie, FrankRose) for security deserve neither.

                •  I never called you a 'hypocrite'. (0+ / 0-)

                  Way to start off on the right foot, big-guy.

                  "You say you support politicians who don't take liberties away"
                  I don't.

                  "then you vote for politicians who take liberties away."
                  I won't.

                  "You can't pick and choose what liberties are important and what liberties are not."
                  But you can?

                  Brilliant post.
                  Really.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:57:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not the one harping on taking away people's (0+ / 0-)

                    liberties - EVERY politician takes away liberties, jeez, Frank, grow up and join the real world.

                    Yeah, you do say you won't support politicians who take liberties away - I can understand the selective memory now that you see the contradiction of your ways.

                    So, you're just not going to vote anymore then, because ALL politicians take away liberties. Grow up.

                    You suck, Frank.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security (ie, FrankRose) deserve neither.

                    •  "I'm not harping on taking people's liberties" (0+ / 0-)

                      You are simply insisting on doing so.

                      "You suck, Frank"
                      You have made your opinion of, not only me, but of all your fellow citizens very clear.
                      Which explains why 20%-30% of Democrats voted for the recall.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:16:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Frank, you make no sense - you say you will (0+ / 0-)

                        only support politicians who do not take "innocent American's liberties away" - but you vote for politicians who do exactly that.

                        I on the other hand, understand the real world isn't a libertarian fantasy land.

                        Could you tell us which liberties are OK to trample on and which are not?

                        Based on your voting record you are a big proponent of taking away people's right to privacy. In fact, you seem insistent on taking innocent American's right to privacy away.

                        Those who would sacrifice the right to privacy for security (ie, FrankRose) deserve neither.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site