START A PETITION34,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
Group Discussions
  Health, Society & Environoment
| track thread
« Back to topics
Ohio Men, Drank Alcohol, Fired AK-47, Hit Neighbours' Houses

Mark Bornino, R. Daniel Volpone, Ohio Men, Drank Alcohol, Fired AK-47, Hit Neighbors' Houses: Police
The Huffington Post | By Andres Jauregui 
Posted: 01/17/2013 2:44 pm EST

Police in Montville Township, Ohio, arrested two men, Mark Bornino and R. Daniel Volpone, after they allegedly drank alcohol and fired off guns, including an AK-47 assault weapon, during target practice Wednesday.

Unbeknownst to the men, police said, the bullets ripped through their paper marks and hit houses 500 yards away, narrowly missing families in their homes.

In once instance, bullets tore through the walls of a house and hit a microwave, reportedly moments after a woman exited her kitchen, according to NBC local news station WKYC.

Startled residents called 911 after hearing rapid gunfire, but according to ABC's WEWS in Montville Township, responding officers were soon dodging bullets themselves as they traced additional shots.

“When I get about a half mile back in the field up on a hill, gunfire started again, and started hearing rounds go over my head,” Montville Police Sgt. Matt Neil said to WEWS.

According to the Medina Gazette, Bornino and Volpone were found drinking alcohol and in possession of marijuana, three handguns and an AK-47 assault weapon with 628 rounds. They were not using a proper backstop.

Neil said the men thought shooting targets at a downward angle would stop the bullets, but apparently "bullets skipped off the ground, and carried over hills striking at least two homes police estimated to be... 500 yards from where the target shooting took place."

The men's guns were seized, and they now face a third-degree felony charge for discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited place.


I know Ron Paul and his Republican buddies support this. What about you guys?

Presidents Home Town with strict gun control

Chicago Weekend Shootings: 10 Dead, At Least 40 Wounded 4 Dead, 31 Wounded In Shootings This Weekend In Chicago More drive-by shootings and robberies Thursday in Chicago

Chicago, Illinois nineteen people were shot last night. During a thirty minute period 13 people in the shooting were wounded.
Chicago Shootings Spike 49% In November Despite Strict Gun Laws

Total homicides in Chicago rose to 480 for the first eleven months of 2012; a 21 percent increase from last year.  On November 30, 2012, there were four fatal shootings within the city.  These murders brought the homicide total to 38 for the month, just above the 37 recorded in November of last year.


Despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel plans on restricting gun ownership further by banning individuals with a violent misdemeanor conviction from getting a gun permit for five years.  The mayor also hopes to ban convicted felons from ever owning a gun.


Emanuel's intentions are no doubt well intentioned, but like many cities with strict gun laws, the disarming of law-abiding citizens doesn't remove guns from the hands of those who wish to do harm.  On the contrary, it often leaves innocent victims vulnerable to criminals.

How can this be?  Chicago is run by progressives.  It has strict gun control.  We have been assured by progressives that with gun control, the crime and homicides will end.  We know that all those good hearted criminals will comply We don't need guns to protect ourselves.  The State will protect us! 


Please pay no attention to the 30 minutes it took the police to show up.  So what if a few more people get shot and killed.  And pay no attention to the increases in rapes after gun control legislations.  A few thousand more women getting raped is a small price to pay.   And some may have to die in order for "the dream" to be realized.   That's OK too.  There can be no progress with some pain.

Gee based on statistics, cities that have democrat/progressive governments have 5-20 times the per capita homicide rates.  How can this happen?  Could it be that the criminals don't give a %#&!*%?


But...... progressives assure us the the criminals that have unregistered and illegal guns are going to give them up.  Even though the has NEVER happened. It'll surely all work out if the laws are just more strict.   Those criminals will then give up their guns.

BTW, this guy was an idiot.  If he was drunk behind the wheel of a vehicle, he or someone like him, could have killed people with that vehicle.  Since some people are irresponsible, and a auto can cause injuries or death, we should take vehicles away from everyone and only let the officially approved government drivers have cars. 

Agree, he had two weapons.  The car and gun were weapons to kill people.


I saw interesting film on fearnet which is now playing called HUNTERS; it is excellent film from Canada.  The prey are innocent humans and the hunters use high powered assault weapons.

I know many people are missing all the time and it has been said this type of hunting is true.

I believe it as too many missing people never accounted for in this country and many other countries as well.


I think the story was based on actual events.  I will watch it again.  It was very serious film and made excellent points that some people should never ever have guns at all.


I went on gretawire and she puts up animals who are endangered, wild cats which are endangered probably due to being hunted down and killed for trophies.


Not one person responded to my statement that they are endangered because of above.

A bunch of right wingers who are all haters over there and want all guns all the time and whatever they do is okay.


My cousin was a hunter who graduated to African safari and killed many beautiful cats, lions, tigers, leopards and had them as rugs all over his house.  A long with the animal heads over the mantle.

He killedd an elephant and had ear made into coffee table, husk into lamps. 

everything was trophies for him, including his wife and mistresses.

He was a life-long republican and he had absolutely no ethics, I am not saying all republicans are like this but it just reinforces their love of guns and they do believe guns over people idealogy.  Not all, but many and he was one of them.

My dad was a republican as is my brother and they are opposite.  They do not like hunting animals or people.  They are not trophy collectors.



This post was modified from its original form on 18 Jan, 5:48

I am very skeptical on some of Rand Paul's stands.

i want very strict gun laws with background checks done for ALL sales.

I do not want high powered weapons with massive magazines.

I do NOT Want ammo that penetrates armour worn by our police officers.

These are my priorities along with the fact that the mentally ill should not have guns along with alcoholics and drug addicts.

These people do have records in courts, believe me!


trailer of move Hunters which is playing on Fearnet now.

Christian, we know you love gun bans, and that you are an original OBAMA defender, so that means you must also love the story Jim posted.  You must also love what happened at Sandy Hook because you helped hang the immeasurably idiotic "Gun Free Zone" shingle outside.


Sheila, why not move to Chicago. They have VERY strict gun laws - among the most strict in the nation. Just pay no attention to the story Jim posted above about the MASS murders in Chicago  by criminals who pay ZERO attention to ANY "law."  


Seriously, Sheila, in face of REALITY, that being that criminals don't register their fire arms or go thru "background checks", and the REALITY that unarmed citizens become the FIRST targets of criminals with guns, how do you see gun bans accomplishing your desired result ?  Please answer that question.  


If you would share your thoughts on the MASS shootings in Chicago story Jim posted, addressing the strict gun laws of Chicago' s part in it, I'd appreciate it.

Sheila, Christian, please respond with your thoughts about the FACT that the most violent crimes and gun murders happen in places, cities, countries, that have disarmed the citizens.  How does that line up with your desire to "protect" everyone from getting dead by guns? 

I will repeat it again:


i want very strict gun laws with background checks done for ALL sales.

I do not want high powered weapons with massive magazines.

I do NOT Want ammo that penetrates armour worn by our police officers.

These are my priorities along with the fact that the mentally ill should not have guns along with alcoholics and drug addicts.

These people do have records in courts, believe me!

Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, the UK, Finland, Germany and other parts of Europe have the most violent crimes and gun murders? That's news to me. And those countries weren't "disarmed." The people there just don't have a fanatical need to own guns, and their laws are much stricter. People there have higher aspirations than to spend most of their time hunkered down in their basements with machine guns, living out warped fantasies involving shootouts with their governments.

As for Angry Jim's posts, I mostly skip over them. I see in his latest one that he has now ramped it up a notch by using large, bold red font, but I still didn't read it.

It's impossible to take Angry Jim seriously.

You use "gun murders" Christian.  Use "homicides"   Like in  Russia and other the former Socialist countries of Eastern Europe .   Their homicide rates are several times higher than the US.  Or if you want to use "gun murders" or "violence"?  Use US cities with strict gun control which have a multiple of the gun murders and violence.  Or Mexico which has strict gun control and only the police and the criminals have guns. 


Truth is you know you cannot answer my comments.  You also do not think things through.  You are actually in favor of a massive increase in the police.  But you just cannot admit it.  

Chistians claims on Europe being low in violence:

Christian states:  "Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, the UK, Finland, Germany and other parts of Europe have the most violent crimes and gun murders? In the case of "violence"  Christian is wrong.  Again.  All the highlighted and underlined countries have more violence that the USA.  Britian has more than 4 times the violence as the US does.  And the worst of  that violence in the USA is in democrat/progressive controlled cities that have strict gun control. 

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

By James Slack

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour. 

Britain even has a worse violence rate than South Africa

Britain has an even worse violence rate than South Africa (file picture)


The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

  • The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
  • It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
  • The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
  • It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

league of shame


The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935,  and South Africa 1,609.

This post was modified from its original form on 19 Jan, 11:03

Oops, Jim, there you go again, posting those ANNOYING little fact thingies that don't match xtian's and other progressives' opinions and Marxist propaganda.

This post was modified from its original form on 19 Jan, 11:28

Yes, I saw Swann's video with the numbers correction. The UK still has more violent crime than the US does. But, as interesting as that may be, and ad hard as you try to redirect, it neglects to address the original intention behind the 2nd. Oh yeah, that.

Another swing and miss by Chile.

Yeah Chile, I read that and there are always differences in how crime is calculated. But what does this author include/exclude? And what is still included in the American figure he uses from the FBI????


He states; "But of the 871,000 crimes against the person, less than half (401,000) involved any actual injury. The remainder were mostly crimes like simple assault without injury." ........... So the author goes on to exclude crimes that don't involve physical injury. in HIS estimates. He confirms that below:


"Note on my estimate: I included all crimes against the person that involved injury, from murder to female genital mutilation,"


The author does not consider a crime "violent" unless it involves a physical injury. Including robbery and apparently sexual assaults that do not result in physical injury. Wow.


Here is the thing: he uses FBI figures that do include as "violent crimes " those that do not result in physical injury. He claims that others are comparing apples and oranges, the he does exactly the same thing!.

As the author points out: "FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as "one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault."


So............  Note that about 70% of the above "violent crime" is the aggravated assault category: "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery."


As the author states his figures only include actual injury the FBI figures include "if the assault were completed", "threat" and "attempt". FBI Rape category also includes "attempt". Robbery includes "attempt". Even if there is no physical injury. So if the author wants to compare the figures? There would be a need to recalculate his figures to include the FBI/American definition, or reduce the American figures to match the criteria of the revised British figures.  Regardless, the revised figures would, once again, show a much higher violent crime rate.  And that is likely true of the other figures on EU violent crime which were left unexplained. 


One other thing:  the author has a very odd idea on what is "violent"  That view is not shared by a single libertarian I know. 

This post was modified from its original form on 19 Jan, 21:04

Send a Green Star to Jim Steve

Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to Jim because you have done so within the last week.

Send a Green Star to Jim Steve
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to Jim because you have done so within the last week.

The one thing we know, is that you just blindly cited figures and you didn't bother to check the source or accuracy of those figures.

You and Alex Jones, just like peas and carrots...

Where' s your analysis to refute anything, Chile? 

No Chile, you cited an article that criticized those figures and that author clearly gave an flawed analysis.  Which means that you didn't bother to read that article, and or didn't bother to check to see if he was making sense. 


BTW, I notice you didn't say anything about the other countries numbers. 


You found an article that all your libertarian "blogs" link to as proof of something so you posted it here. The article I linked to shows how disingenious that article is and admits that it doesn't have the answers. Failed Study, Failed methodology, failed comparison.

Yet, here you are, defending it.  


Own it for a change, or it will become clear, yet again, that you are more concerned with "winning" then being honest.



Where is your analysis that refutes Jim, Chile?  


What kind of website did your article come from, Chile?  What is your conclusion on the correct numbers for comparative statistics, and which of them tell us that more gun control = less gun murders AND violent crime.

And what exactly is "horseshyt" about anything Jim posted?  Or do you just skip or skim over his posts like xtian says he does and don't understand because you didn't read what he said?  Is that why all you can do is type silly insults ?

"Ohio Men, Drank Alcohol, Fired AK-47, Hit Neighbors' Houses: Police"

Guns don't kill, drunks kills.  Perhpas we should outlaw alcohol.

And cars, doctors, medicine, hospitals, ban swimming, electricity, tornados, hurricanes...

Yeah, I am going to go through the multiple nations crims statistics and do the analysis. I have time for that. Sure..Of all of your STUPID arguments...

Gee Chile, another non response.

  1. The implied original claim was made that violent crime in those EU countries was below that of the USA. Made without any proof.
  2. I offered an article that disputed that claim.
  3. You gave a link to a refutation that was flawed. Obviously you didn't even read it to find those flaws.......... Which is what you criticized me for!!!  LOL. 
  4. BUT, as I pointed our, since re figuring according that authors revised criteria would still have resulted in a much higher violent crime rate in the UK, you have not been able to offer any real refutation.
  5. Note: you still have not offered any proof of the original claim Christian implied.
  6. So I guess you think it is OK to make claims with absolutely no facts at all. .

Got it.

Your proof is not proof. You provided lies. European countries do not have anywhere near as much gun violence as the US. Unlike you, I've actually lived in those countries and have relatives there. As is par for the course for you, you'll pull any old corrupt stats from your ignorant ass to prove a point which does not exist. If you really believe that Sweden has a worse problem with guns than the US, you'll believe anything.

You should try travellling someday. It might do you some good to leave your mother's basement for a spell. See the real world, and experience reality instead of trolling for skewed propaganda and misinformation on your crank websites.


USA is the most violent country in the world.

Never heard that Europe was more violent.

INternet is full of screwballs who make things up all the time.

You have to be careful where you get your facts from.  I noticed many who are leaning right get their statistics from the far right wing sites.  I did it myself when I supported the GOP romney for POTUS.  I knew better but did it anyway. 


I won't do it again.  I never did it when I first came onto Care2 as I called many out to using those sites.  Very few sites are reputable if they are left or right wingers.


Mother Jones is exceptional.  

Washington Post:

Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country

Data source: United Nations (Max Fisher — The Washington Post)

The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting that killed 27, including 20 children, is already generating the same conversation that every mass shooting in America generates: Why are there so many shootings?

One piece of this puzzle is the national rate of firearm-related murders, which is charted above. The United States has by far the highest per capita rate of all developed countries. According to data compiled by the United Nations, the United States has four times as many gun-related homicides per capita as do Turkey and Switzerland, which are tied for third. The U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times the average for all other countries on this chart. That means that Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country.

The above chart measures data for the nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which includes all Western countries plus Turkey, Israel, Chile, Japan, and South Korea. I did not include Mexico, which has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war.

The rate in several developing countries, particularly in Latin America, is significantly higher

jim;  you posted fbi stats with no link to where it came from, you did that before on economics blog and the proof came from a far right wing site and they inserted so called govt. stats.


sorry, i don't trust those crazy sites.  your inform. is very dubious.

No Sheila.  The FBI site is clearly on the above post.  See above post highlighted link  in BLUE:   Here it is agan highlighted in RED: 

As far as your other complaint Sheila?  I replied in the same thread right under your comment repeated as follows in green: 


"I said:  "Notice all the data comes from Federal Reserve, BLS and other government data Archie."


?????  I said the DATA was from the Fed and the Government"


So, Sheila.  if you look at  that thread, you will find the sources of the data on Mish's blog.  For example:  "Please consider the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( B L S ) December 2012 Employment Report."  linked is the BLS report on that site. 

All the data is documented as to where it came from.  Some of the charts and the comments are Mish's.   Some of the charts are government or Fed produced. 
BUT as I said  the DATA comes from government and Federal Reserve sources.   BLS by the way is the Bureau of Labor Statistics which is the government. 


This post was modified from its original form on 24 Jan, 14:18

This post was modified from its original form on 24 Jan, 14:19

And Sheila?  If you have a problem with me, or what I post, and cannot be bothered to read a reply I make on a complaint you have made?  And you don't bother to even click a link I leave? And complain about that?......Why don't you just skip over what I write?    Works for me.   

Jim loses every argument on facts

and then declares victory....

Jim, Sheila may be unaware that text within the body of an online article that shows up blue and underlined is a hyperlink (a url embedded in text).  It happens!  Awhile back I was accused of "often" not linking to a source (as if others can't Google as well as I can lol), but I ALWAYS link to my source - but most often with hyperlinks.  The problem, I guess, is that if some people don't see the actual URL they aren't going to click on a hyperlink, or don't know to.  However, it's easy to find the source if it's not provided, which is what I almost always do.

Sheila, It's pretty easy to find most sources of online material.  I just copy a whole (unique) sentence or phrase from the piece (or post) and Google it.  Or for this example...  If you copy paste the text to FBI hyperlink within Jim's post ("FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime") into Google search then, if exactly like my results, the second hit of your search results should be the exact page the hyperlink in Jim's post takes you to.  The first hit was for another page at the FBIs site, "FBI- Violent Crime" (somewhere beyond the "FBI- Violent Crime Homepage" that the hyperlink goes to).

Gee Archie leaves a chart!

But, we know all that information Archie. Long ago in this discussion.   Note that 45% of that number is gang homicides.  I'm trying to obtain the number of homicides by felons, but it's difficult to break down the figures.  Regardless, there is some other information available like: 

Publication Homicide Trends in the United States

Alexia Cooper, Erica Smith

November 16, 2011    NCJ 236018

Presents findings from data on homicides that occurred in the United States from 1980 through 2008. It also includes overall homicide rates for 2009 and 2010. The report contains a series of tables and figures that describe homicide patterns and trends. This patterns and trends release analyzes homicide trends by age, sex, and race, including homicides of children under age 5 and of persons age 65 or older. It examines the relationship between the victim and the offender, particularly in cases of intimate and family homicide. Data include homicides involving multiple victims and offenders, circumstances surrounding the death, justifiable homicides, law enforcement officers killed, homicides cleared, and homicide trends by city size and weapon use. The data are primarily from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports with summary data from the annual report, Crime in the United States, for 2009 and 2010.


Jim, Chile may not be aware that the analysis above was based on figures from the very people he defends (big centralized  Marxist leaning government). It happens! with statists. A Lot!


The extreme reduction in crime and homicides are happening at the same time gun ownership is INCREASING.  But, but, but that's impossible.  Nope. 

I'm not claiming the reduction in crime is due to more guns, but the question arises: with the violent crime rate the lowest in years and dropping at 5-6%/year, and gun homicides declining at a even more rapid rate, why is it that the government and the left is so intent in violating another Constitutional right?..........     And why now? 
National Homicides Plunge, .............Chicago Homicides Surge

Strict gun control Chicago finished 2012 having recorded a grisly milestone—506 homicides for the year. This appalling total represented a spike of 17 percent over the previous year,  With less than 1% of the nations population, Chicago logs in with over 5% of the estimated homicides. 

Nationally, homicides are expected to come in at the lowest numbers in over 50 years. Violent crimes are also seen to be at record lows. 

Dude's livin' in his own little world.

And no matter how crazy he gets, his old lady will always come running to his defense.....

 oh well. another example of how libertarians are idiots.

No answers? ....... No surprise!


What is "the left"  "what is the right"  "what is up"?......  Wow such deep thinking.  . 


And when I hear that and "crazy" and "idiots" from you people, I know  I'm on the right track!  So Thanks again for the confirmation! 


Sleep tight now.  Nanny government is watching over you. 

This post was modified from its original form on 24 Jan, 19:10

No, just "the left." We know what the right is all about, but you keep referring to "the left" as if that is the only other thing in the world apart from the right, and you continually refuse to define who "the left" actually are. Not once have you ever defined or described "the left."

Come to think of it, I'm not even sure you know what the term means. That might explain your inability to define or describe the word.

In all these years all I have ever seen Xtian do is bully people - unless he thought kissing ads would get him a piece of it (xtian does love to travel the US to visit women he met on line, I don't think he travels the world much on an office flunky salary).  He trolls groups where he knows people disagree with him then makes drops posts like "Huh?" and "what's the left?" before he launches into a rant that has nothing to do with anything except that he hates the founding principles America was founded upon (individual liberty), and he hates anyone who values their personal liberty.  Five years ago he had LOTS to say about "Bush" killing babies in the M.E..  Now that it's his precious "Democrat"  who is killing babies in the M.E. not so much!  Same goes for most everyone I know who voted for Obama: DEAD Silence on the invasions in the M.E. and the slaughter of innocents.  The media is silent this time around too.  Imagine that.


Yeah, we should listen to you.  Not.

The Three Stooges as Christian, Archie and Chile!

Christian does seem to have some unresolved aggression issues. 

I see a remarkable resemblance to "The Three Stooges" in Archie, Christian and Chili........ Kind of funny really. "Stooge" fits too! 



Jim:  I clicked the link you provided re: FBI, it does not exist.


I am referring to a prev. post which I did ask you about and the person was from a right wing site, citing govt. stats. 


I am not saying everything you put up is irrelevant.  You can say same about me and I was called out for all my Obama is gay stuff.  How many times did I have to repeat those links.

Now Kevin DuJan of Hillbuzz does not post anything.


The newsweek cover was published and openly commented about as it was andrew Sullivan piece that Obama was gay.  And I was called out by many here as it does not mean anything if he is, which is true.  But, Americans should know certain facts about their president.


Rock Hudson was gay, but he was a good actor and I am well aware many people are gay and they do excellent jobs.



From Glenn Greenwalds latest Q&A

Do labels such as "conservative", "liberal" and "progressive" (the latter in particular) have any clear and objective meaning in modern political dialogue? – bujinin

I won't say they have no meaning: they can be useful in some limited sense. But for me, they obfuscate far more than clarify. It could just be my own personal experience - people have tried to apply almost every political label to me since I began writing, and it's clearly just a shorthand means of trying to dismiss my arguments without having to engage them on the merits - so I just generally dislike them.


Fits Jim to a T

So ... still no defintion from anyone on what constitutes "the left"?


There doesn't appear to be any acknowledgement by "the right" that drunk guys firing off AK-47s for a lark is any kind of problem. Just ten tons of malarky - written in large, bold red font - about how gun violence in European countries is worse, all backed up with suspect graphs, angry polemics about government, and topped off with personal attacks.

No surprise there.

xtian,  I am not on "the right" ... I belong to no political party, nor do I support any.  

To ME, the terms left and right refers to people who vote (always or primarily) Democrat (left) and support socialist- Marxist policy.  The confusion for me comes with defining the right because except for the feigned differences (in government), I see little to no differences between them when we examine results and voting records (Democrats and Republicans, as a whole, don't seem to put much stock in examining results and voting records).  As for Dem and Rep ' voters' go, the differences/exceptions would be that the right shows more concern over preserving our freedom while the left is screaming for the government to take their freedom away.  But the right also has a penchant for wanting to govern from the pulpit (while so many Dems have effectively campaigned to diminish our Constitution.  Note how it was the Rep. Bush who gave us the UnConstitutional PATRIOT Act, but it was the Dem. Obama who doubled down and gave us the new and improved even more UnConstitutional NDAA which OBAMA insisted contained provisions to allow American citizens to be disappeared by the own MILITARY.)  


In our "government" there are only two prevailing "sides", call them what you will - left/right, up/down, yellow/purple, red/blue, or dem/rep.


As far as political philosophies have been labeled in the past and how they compare to the labels and philosophies of today, Jim HAS explained that, xtian.  I guess you missed the same several of Jim's posts that do exactly the opposite of what you accuse.  This must be because as you have told us, you skip over Jim's posts and don't read them?  

This post was modified from its original form on 26 Jan, 8:34

The Democrats are not left, let alone socialist or Marxist. 

Sheila, why in the WORLD should we know about a President' s sexual preferences? That's just "eww"  Our concern is the ' crimes'  he committed (after he purgered himself when he lied under Oath to preserve and protect the Constitution), like killing children with DRONES in Pakistan, prosecuting or silencing (indefinite detention) dissent and whistleblowers, for a couple of examples.

xtian, What is "left" in American politics, in your opinion?  You aren't going to try to compare American government parties/philosophies/politics with those of other countries - again - are you?

Our entire government is Cleary leans more and more socialist-Marxist every week.  Gawd you are either completely indoctrinated, incredibly naive, or flat out stupid.  Either way, I think you  should consider thinking along the lines of shut the %#&!*% up when you are so dangerously unaware of your surroundings.


Have you read Marx, xtian?  How do you define socialism, and at what point do the social programs mandated by a microscopic percentage of the population end and socialism begins? 

How could there be no comparison with other countries? You've gotta be kidding. Why, just the next country up, Canada, has a true left party called the NDP which is decidedly, and significantly, more to the left than the American Democrats. Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist. So tell me: If the Democrats are well right of the NDP, how does that make the Democrats a "left" party? The Democrats are somewhere in the middle in the grand scheme of things. And President Obama is quite clearly the most right-wing Democrat ever to hold office.

The US has an actual socialist party called (surprise) Socialist Party USA ( They are definitely a left-wing party, by every definition. How could the Democrats possibly be considered a left-wing party when compared with the Socialist Party USA?

This really shouldn't have to be explained to you.
Again, just because you have no idea how the rest of the world works doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't exist.

This post was modified from its original form on 26 Jan, 10:07

I didn't even touch on the European political parties which sometimes number 6-8 per country, all varying degrees of left, right and middle, all sharing power together, sometimes in the form of coalitions. The two main American parties in power are a joke. One is definitely right-wing. Of that there is no doubt. But the other one is nowhere near "left." It is centre at best, and appears to be equally as corrupt and controlled by corporations as the other one. The Democrats would be considered somewhat to the right in most other countries. There is no true left party in the US apart from the fringe ones that no one votes for.

I'm sure your next post will be some angry, butthurt diatribe of denial, but these are the facts as they stand. None of what I wrote is my opinion., It is easily verifiable fact.

What do Canada's politics and it's own political labels have do to with our politics and political labels? Nothing.  

Answer my questions, xtian?  They are just above for your reference

That was explained already. Moreover, the terms "left" and "right" did not orginate in the US. They refer to the physical layout of the parliamentary system in which one party's members were seated to the left of the speaker and the other on the right. In France, the revolutionists were on the left, and the establishment were on the right. The terms have grown to encompass definitions of ideology, i.e. liberalism and conservatism.

Again, when placed on a proper scale, the Dems are more in the middle than anything else.

The US is still a relatively young country compared with others, so no one with an ounce of intelligence would ever measure a US political party on a small fraction of a worldwide scale. They would use the entire scale. To do otherwise would be ignorant.

You go right ahead, though. Americans generally have no idea what they are talking about politically, so no one really cares what they think. Reality and fact are all that count.


Maybe you're confusing the fact that people on the far left in America, such as hippies, vote for the Dems come election time. That would be because there is no other viable party that represents their true belifes and values, so they go for whatever isn't the Republicans, and that would be (gasp) the Democrats.

This does not mean that the Democratic party itself has far-left hippie values.

Again, it's probably too subtle a distinction for the ignorant ideologue.

This will make your head spin:

Ontario Liberal leadership convention: Kathleen Wynne will be next premier
Robert Benzie Richard J. Brennan and Rob Ferguson
Queen’s Park Bureau

Kathleen Wynne will be the next premier of Ontario.

Liberal delegates at the leadership convention selected her on the third ballot with 1,150 votes, while Sandra Pupatello garnered 866.

Wynne and Pupatello were neck and neck after the first ballot. After the second, Pupatello stretched out her lead slightly.

But victory was sealed for Wynne after the second ballot, when candidates Gerard Kennedy and Charles Sousa, in distant third and fourth place respectively, dropped out to support her.

Prior to the first ballot, the candidates made their case for victory.

Pupatello said she is the only candidate who could fend off Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak and NDP Leader Andrea Horwath.

“Let me be clear on this point: I know Ontarians don’t want an election. But if we are forced into one, we will be ready. And I am the candidate that can win that election,” she said.

“Our party needs a leader who can inspire and motivate Liberals, A leader who can bring a campaign to life and the opposition to its knees. In the meantime we have work to do as a government.”


See, because where it says "liberal," it's not referring to the traditional adjective used in the US to describe "the left." It's referring to a member of the Liberal Party of Ontario or their federal cousins, the Liberal Party of Canada.

And they are not the left-wing party. The NDP, also mentioned in the article is the left-wing party, and the Progressive Conservatives are the right-wing party (though not as far right as the American Republicans).

This is why the contention that the Democratic party is "left-wing" is a complete crock, as they are politically similar to the Liberals, not the NDP. The Liberals are Canada's centre party.

Canada also has the Green Party which is both a bit to the left and a bit to the right of the Liberals. Yes, they have policies that are to the right of the Liberals who are in the middle. They are not as far left as the NDP.

On top of that, there's the Parti Quebecois which is centre-left.

So you see, this whole idea of the Democrats being "left" is simply part of a concocted 'good-vs-evil/left-right' game that Americans like to play. It has little basis in reality.

These are the facts, agree with them or not. To disagree is like living in blissful denial, kinda like sitting in warm pee. I can understand that to get up would cause an uncomfortable cold shock, but to prefer sitting in warm pee is lazy and dishonourable.

This post was modified from its original form on 26 Jan, 18:19

Sorry you are having problems with your computer/ links Sheila.  Those links work on both computers I use.  Usually I am very specific in words, so when I say "data" I mean exactly that.  Charts that derive from that data just illustrate the data, showing trends, for example.  I sometimes forget that many do not have a background in statistics. 

If you cut and paste the link you say does not exist, it would be helpful.  I left a number of links to the FBI.  Or google the "FBI violent crime"  you should be able to find it. 


As Noam Chomsky states:   the meanings of "right" and "left", "liberal", "libertarian" and "conservative" have been distorted.  It is a waste of time to get into this. I use "left" only as an term indicating those that think the State .is the answer.  


 Statism is the real issue. Almost all democrats and the majority of the GOP are Statists.  Chile, Christian, Archie want a change in policies, but IMO do not recognize that the State whithout strict limits is parasitic.   Chile, Christian and  Archie seem to think that is "right wing", but they have a hard time with the fact that I, and people like me, are anti war, think that diverting massive resources to the military is immoral and wasteful.  Ditto the war on drugs and putting millions in prison for non violent, and non fraud  "crimes".  They see that as a policy problem.  We see that as a problem with the power of the State. 


The thing here is although we would agree on a number of issues, they do no wish to find common ground.  Their core belief is in the State and think this is a management problem.  History are reality have proved we are correct.  Since our concepts undermine their core beliefs, most progressives are engaged in a widespread attack on libertarians.  Lot's of rancour, attempta on marginalizing, demonizing and dehumanizing.  That's unfortunate.  We would and are supportive on many issues. 


We just are coming from a different mind set.  Likewise, we are not going to agree on more State power over the people.  If this is what you are trying to are wasting your time.  Many of us came from a liberal/progressive background.......  Been there, done that and moved on. 

Have you read Marx, xtian?  

How do you define socialism, and

At what point do the social programs mandated by a microscopic percentage of the population end and socialism begins? 

Katii:  I was wrong to post gossip about BO's sex life.  It is his private life, not mine or anyone elses.  Those tawdry sites are still doing it and they don't stop.


I am being honest about the anonymous style stories on Ulsterman reports.  They are maligning and calculated and some people would believe them as they are written with great detail and designed to hook people onto that site.


Hey, the election is over.  I am not in a hate fest mode, I am turned off to that as it is unhealthy for me personally.  It is what it is and if people are unhappy, there are more elections.


NO way is Obama going to totally transform American by 2016; that is panic talk purposefully perpetrated by the crazy right wingers.  America cannot be to totally transformed in 4 years; it will take decades.  However, a lot of damage can be done.   Nothing is irreversible either.

Sheila, actually, yes it can be totally transformed that quickly. The ducks (that be the majority of the population) are all sitting and lined up. The prep work is done. Our country has already been totally transformed to the tank it is today. It's taken 100 years! for the public to start to wake from their dream-state and recognize what fiat currency really "isn't" and that the Fed has skimmed untold Trillions from our economy via central bank profiteering. We don't have another 100 f'ing years to wait for Americans to stop putting up with this crap; all the spending, the debt, and the wars that feed both. We need to start "transforming" to sanity in government like yesterday. We act NOW or my grown kids are going to live in a modernized third world country with everyone living in a total police state. It's knocking on their front doors now, for petesake. That is reality, Sheila. And what the hell good is more "elections" going to do WITHOUT the "People" transforming? So far, for the past 100 Years, our elections (basically totally fixed now, with electronic vote machines) have done nothing but dig us deeper in the ditch, warring all the way to the poor house.

Jim and his old lady's positions

seem solidly "right wing" to me....

All this blathering about "The State" is just a sideshow. Without a strong government, you can't have democracy - you'd just have the law of the jungle; rule by warlords or direct corporate rule - which is really what right wingers want.

Might as well practice saying "Seig Heil Walmart!"

I realize you guys have moved on, but in regards to the original post in this thread...

The exception doesn't prove the rule. And just because there are some idiots doesn't mean all gun owners are idiots.


I believe in having a local, non-militarized, police force to protect everyone's rights equally against said idiots and other acts of violence.


And, responsible gun owners know that one should never mix guns and alcohol (yes, like not mixing driving with alcohol.) And, they're also aware of the stopping point of what they shoot.


"Banning guns because of their misuse is like banning the First Amendment because one might libel or slander." -Ron Paul  

No government is anarchy. Libertarians want limited goverenment.

Both are anti-corporatists.

Bloated government  is the biggest corporation of all.

Our country is supposed to be, as it was founded, a republic, not a democracy. Democracy allows for mob rule which is oppressive.


"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." -Jefferson 

"Limited Government"

is rule by the 1%.

Democracy is essential.

A limited government is a Constitutional government. Archie and Chile hates the Constitution. Chile and Archie, and Christian, hate for you to have property rights, they hate self defense rights, financial rights, free speech rights, they hate due process, and they hate rich people, people who have more than than they do are to be demonized (even the one/s providing him with his job and lifestyle) if the resist having their property taken from them or are not willing to give more than everyone else to pay for the f'ups they and their ilk actually vote for, like electing Obama, or Bush. TWICE, most of them.

It is just so disgusting to hear an "American" defend and protect "democracy." It's offensive to America and everyone who died to give the pro-democracy gang their CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and the personal liberty to pursue the happiness of their 'choice' that came with it. Had the Founding Fathers created a mob rule "democracy" these pro-democracy people very likely wouldn't be here, would never have been born here - certainly not born in a free country! "Democracy" is the MEANS by which governments slowly but surely strip people of their rights until they have - none. Yet, here are people defending "democracy" for no other reason than the word (but not it's meaning) democracy has been drilled into the American psyche - BY the government. A better system exists, it's been tried and true. It's called "The Great Experiment." look into it's history if you are unfamiliar.

We have big bloated government now with the 1% in control.

Corruption and cronyism are running rampant.

Lobbyists throw more money at our elected officials to maintain special interest.

The elite are running the show.

Wall street gets away with crime, while the protesters get the "unlawful protest" bill passed into law.

Did not people pay attention to the Occupy Wallstreeters and what they had to say in protest?

Internet activists are getting more jail time than rapists.

The 1% are profiting off of continuous war at the tax payers' expense.

'I just don't understand how people can STILL not see that the elite (corporations/bankers/etc.) use government as a tool to ensure that there is one set of rules for them and another, much more restrictive set for everyone else.'

Glad to hear you right wingers

coming out against democracy.

It's good to take your masks off and let people see what they're dealing with....

I here bring to your attention that the United States of America was formed as a Republic and not a Democracy. All our lives you and I have been conditioned to believe we are a Democracy in America. How long has it been since you have heard of America referred to as a Republic? You see, there was purpose behind the words in the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag referring to our country as, “the Republic for which it stands.” Ladies and gentlemen rest assured there is a very good reason the term “democracy” does not exist either in our Constitution or the Declaration of our Independence from the Monarchial King of England. A true Democracy is mob rule. Any government set up as a Democracy is the same government we would have if we were set up as a Socialist, Communist, or Marxist government. In these forms the government is a mob ruling over the people with absolutely no rights for individuals or minorities.

It has been written, “The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people’s freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them fromexternal threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.” Democracy and/or Socialism is mob rule by government. The founders of America were all too familiar with democracies/socialism, and deliberately did everything in their power to prevent a Democracy. It has been written, “In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem.” The people have no obligation to the government; the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to them, for they are its owner. Not only have many politicians, Republican and Democrat, lost sight of this fact, but a great many of the American people.

A Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. The goal of our founding fathers in forming a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the disastrous extremes of either tyranny (absolute ruler) or “mobocracy.” (government mob).

Glad to hear you so called liberals

coming out pro democracy.

It's good to take your masks off and let people see what they're dealing with....




A limited government is a Constitutional government. Archie and Chile hates the Constitution. Chile and Archie, and Christian, hate for you to have property rights, they hate self defense rights, financial rights, free speech rights, they hate due process, and they hate rich people, people who have more than than they do are to be demonized (even the one/s providing him with his job and lifestyle) if the resist having their property taken from them or are not willing to give more than everyone else to pay for the f'ups they and their ilk actually vote for, like electing Obama, or Bush

- Yeah. and Katii wonders why people ignore her most of the time. Its really not worth commenting on or defending. Katii, you are like a more ignorant version of Jeffrey Williams.

ARichie, could you be more ignorant?  Really?  If you are an American why don't you KNOW  1) America is not a democratic form of government, 2) America is a Constitutional Republic, and 3) why?  

Chile, everything I said is true. That's why people like you don't listen to me, or anyone else - except criminals and the fools that vote them into office.


 How' s your IRA doing, Chile?  Were you prepared for the smaller paycheck that started this month?  When is the last time you did anything that you weren't required to get permission from your nanny-state first, except perhaps wipe your ass and flush your government mandated toilet. Don't forget to turn out the poisonous government mandated light bulb on your way out.  


Tell us, Chile, does your paycheck depend on tax dollars and the politicians that dole it out?  

"A Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. The goal of our founding fathers in forming a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the disastrous extremes of either tyranny (absolute ruler) or “mobocracy.” (government mob)." - Rebecca . 


Maybe if you wrote it in giant letters, Rebecca, with crayon? then these tin foil hat wearers like Chile, Archie,, and Christian, can comprehend?  Naa. 

"Its really not worth commenting on or defending." - Chile . 


Yet, you copy/pasted to quote me, you did comment - with horseshyt, because you CAN'T defend what I said about you - because it's true.

This post was modified from its original form on 28 Jan, 6:33

Haven't you figured it out Katii?  Anything that is not on the politically correct 5X7 card of approved statist ideology is not acceptable in any way or form.....Therefore it is unthinkable to comment on it.  The greatest Statists in history would have loved these guys......  as they do now. 

What I can't figure out is why anyone but those in control of the state (in "America" that is the criminal Dem/Rep-Progressive/NeoCon-left/right Party) would support and defend a state that cripples them?  It's beyond reason to me how someone can swallow bullshyt this long and not get tired of being fed bullshyt by those eating fresh organic, non-GMO delicacies prepared by their personal chefs with food from their personal gardens served on fine platinum rimmed porcelain, eaten with sterling flatware, and washed down with the finest wines from vintage Baccarat crystal stemwater - while they are surrounded by armed gunmen - er, I mean 'security'.

Yes its true. I hate the constitution. Everyone does, except for Jim and Katii, who, by the way, are the only ones qualified to interpret it.

100's of years of study and analysis. NOPE.  its all down to Jim and Katii and their complete and total arrogance.

For example, 100's of years of debate on the 2nd ammendment, Scalia is the one that decides it is unequivical that we have a right to bear arms. That makes sense. Scalia, that great historian and intellectual powerhouse. 

As for taxes, we are paying the lowest tax rates in recnet history. I am fine with rasing them some. I would prefer we would stop spenign a trillion a year on "defense". Taxes are necessary.

When have I ever said you don't have a right to free speech, or that everyone doesn't? How do i hate rich people? because I think that if you make money off the infrastructure of the united states, then you should pay for the use of that infrastructure? - TRULY LIBERTARIAN, i might add.

Hate due process? How do I hate due process? I have donated to Wiki leaks, donate to

Jim, baby, i love how you go from calling people one set of names to another. And you don't even realize what your doing. that is awesome.

So what do you two do? Sit here and pound out internet BS, calling everyone else names, while feeding your own egos and putting yourselves on pedestals?

You two sure are special. 

" recent history"     define recent.  Just 100 years ago the tax rate was  7% … it's been an uphill battle and war after war ever since.


How is it you are missing that the feds are $17 TRILLION IN DEBT?  How the HELL do you think the feds were able to do that if not for TAXATION and the Federal Reserve (I bet you defend too).  


BTW, Chile, I get my knowledge about our Constitution from Constitutional scholars, not from random people like you on the internet.  Try it. You might like it.  And that's really rich you whining about name calling - OMG  You big baby. Can't take what you dish out. How manly. Maybe you shouldn't have come into this group with that big cow-chip on your shoulder and slinging insults at "selected members" (the ONLY reason you are here). You set the tone for yourself.  Tell me, Chile, what kind of person is it that makes a point to spend time in a group membered by people you clearly despise JUST to sit behind a keyboard and attack them because they don't share your love of big government And diminishing FREEDOM.

Chile: expert on diatribe, ignores glass house.

I'm sure you would not have a problem paying more taxes Chile, and since your employment is linked to the government, that does make sense. You want more and others to have less. 


As far as names? Throwing rocks from palaces of glass comes to mind. Pretty obvious who has been doing the most of the name calling. You don't seem to like it when a tiny bit is returned your way. Dual standards Chile.


As far as the "lowest taxes in recent history"? That indeed is what we are being told. But like all such claims it side steps the actual costs and the real issues.

  1. Debt and future liabilities are not included
  2. The total costs of government are not examined including state and local spending.
  3. The hidden taxes of price inflation are not included
  4. The effects of redistribution of wealth via cronyism and monetary expansion are omitted
  5. The absorption of productivity increases by monetary expansion are obfuscated. The winners in this are those that are connected with government and the losers are the general public.

Let's look at this a different way: Chile would have a valid point if none of the above were the case. If we were actually paying for the costs of government solely from our taxes and no Americans were being given an advantage under the crony system we have. That is not the case. Therefore this is first and foremost an issue of government costs and who benefits disproportionally from those costs.


In FY 2000, total government spending (Local State and Federal) was about 32% of the GDP. Now it is claimed to be about 40% of the GDP. But 8.3% of that is deficit spending. The government claims that deficit spending as a positive on GDP. Like if a family made $100,000 and spent $108,300 and then claimed their income was $108,300. The debt is still a liability. There is no free lunch.


So, the idea here is that if are taxes/government revenues do not cover the cost of government there is no foul. Unfortunately, the debt will have to be paid someday.

Otherwise we should all pay zero taxes and rack up even more debt. 

The cost of government and it's

Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing

The federal government is spending more per household than ever before. Since 1965, spending per household has grown by 152 percent, from $11,900 in 1965 to $30,015 in 2012. From 2012 to 2022, it is projected to rise to $34,602—a 15 percent increase.


Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing
Federal Spending Grew Nearly 12 Times Faster than Median Income

When federal spending grows faster than Americans' paychecks, the burden of government on taxpayers becomes greater. Over the past four decades, median-income Americans' earnings have risen only 24 percent, while spending has increased 288 percent.


Federal Spending Grew Nearly 12 Times Faster than Median Income
So, while incomes have grown a little, government spending in relation to those incomes has exploded.  

This post was modified from its original form on 29 Jan, 8:43
debt as a tax

Federal Spending Exceeds Federal Revenue by More than $1 Trillion

Since 1965, spending has risen constantly. While federal revenues are recovering from the recent recession, spending is growing sharply, resulting in four consecutive years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion.


Federal Spending Exceeds Federal Revenue by More than $1 Trillion
What if Families Handled Finances Like the Federal Government Does?

In 2010, median family income was $51,360. If a typical family followed the federal government's lead, it would spend $73,319 and put 30 cents of every dollar spent on a credit card. This family would have racked up $325,781 in credit card debt—like a mortgage, only without the house. What credit card company would continue lending money to this family?


What if Families Handled Finances Like the Federal Government Does?

This post was modified from its original form on 29 Jan, 8:52
But I do agree with Chile.....

....on one thing:  The USA does not need to spend so much on "defense".  The above charts are from the Heritage Institute and are correct as to their content.  The site goes on to claim that we need to cut domestic spending so we can continue "defense" spending.  I would agree with Chile here, although the details might differ.  I think a 2-3% of GDP spending on "defense" is plenty.  This would save about  $300 Billion/year.  I also would cut sharply back on spending on the "security state", end the war on drugs, release those in prison that are there for non violent "crimes" excepting fraud and such.  In other words:  end the Keynesian militarism and Keynesian justice system and the Keynesian security state. 

I find it unfortunate...

...that Chile, Archie and Christian go on the attack instead of attempting to find common ground.  Anything said that opposes the advance of the State seems to enrage them.  

In 1965 the federal debt BURDEN on each American was $11,000...  And, as if THAT was OK.  How is debt BURDEN on American men, women, children and BABIES "OK" - at ANY amount?  Answer that for us Chiilearchiextian?

First, your use of Keynesian, really shows that you don't understand what you talk about. keynes advocating for reduction of spending in times of surplus. Not conitinued spending.

Second, The argument that you are making is non-sensical, you confuse the complete and logical and hostorically supported fact that taxes are required for civil society and to support infrastructure which supports business which supports growth, and a desire to have rampant spending. the need for social programs, insurance for old age in the form of SS and medicare care and development of our infrastructure is not an endorsement of all spending.

third, I am not paid by tax dollars. i have worked on projects that have had tax payer funding, but that is rare and typically in the form of bonds. Most of my work comes from the private sector.

"burden" is a funny term. runningn small deficits is not bad economics. But neither is running high ones in bad economic times.

Common Ground? Where have you ever tried to find common ground? Asked about common sense gun control, you scream about 2nd ammendment and taking our guns. Asked about Common sense proposals for SS and Medicare and single payer and you rant and arave about "the Constitution" - again as if YOU TWO are the only two capable of understanding any of its meanings.

Give it up.

How is "burden" a"funny term" ?  What's so funny about being born with a f'ing tax bI'll?  How many times does something have to be paid for?  And where does it say the "federal" government is the only ones that can build and maintain infrastructure?  


And who but you, Chile, has claimed anyone is the only one/s who knows anything? Nobody.  But yes, a few of us disagree with your statist philosophy.  In fact tens of millions of other people disagree with your statist philosophy, so no, Jim and I are not the only two people who disagree with you  You just have a hard-on for both of us and can't resist taking cheap shots.   


Oh, and Chile? If you believe we are misunderstanding the Constitution, if you believe the Founders didn't know how to interpret the Constitution they wrote, the please, by all means, Jim, me, a host of contemporary constitutional scholar/experts, along with Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, et al need for you to set us all straight.  And you are the guy to do it because apparently only you "understand" the Constitution.  


For example... What part of the 2nd Amendment even hints at restricting or banning arms from citizens?  What part of the Constitution says the government can make me pay for your abortion? 

She's just a standard, garden variety


Sad, but true.....

For Chile
  1. Chile: "keynes advocating for reduction of spending in times of surplus. Not conitinued spending" ...........Where did I make any claim about that Chile ?
  2. BTW, "Keynesian" refers to the entire branch of that school of economics, Later versions that patched failed theory are known as "Neo-Keynesian".
  3. Managing booms and busts through fiscal surpluses and deficits did not come from Keynes as you imply, it came from Abba Lerner.    Keynes endorsed the idea a few years before his death.
  4. Keynes mostly advocated for government intervention and spending when interest rate policy failed to produce a economic recovery after a recession. This is best illustrated in his concept of a "Liquidity Trap". 

Just curious Chile, have you read General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money? I have. I don't use most of the terms here or others that derive from different economic schools of thought. It would take to long to explain the terms to those that have no background in economics. But if you really want to learn, I can give you some starting points. It's OK if you just wish to learn about the economics of what you would agree with. . 

Here's a Teabagger barbecue for the Teabaggers in the group:


It's oh-so classy.

This post was modified from its original form on 29 Jan, 21:20

Chile: "Common Ground? Where have you ever tried to find common ground? Asked about common sense gun control, you scream about 2nd ammendment and taking our guns. Asked about Common sense proposals for SS and Medicare and single payer and you rant and arave about "the Constitution" - again as if YOU TWO are the only two capable of understanding any of its meanings."


As you say Chile. The "common ground" must be on the issues you select and the agreement must be on what you think is "common sense". We must agree with you for it to be "common ground". And you determine what "common sense" is. Anything else is unthinkable.


Sorry you don't agree that "common ground" would include the things I mentioned like reducing the defense budget, ending failed interventions overseas, ending the drug war, decriminalizing non violent "crimes" and releasing those that are rotting in prison while their families suffer. Or curbing corporate control over government.   Those things seem unimportant to you. 


Katii, Rebecca, David and I are not progressives Chile.  We are not going to agree with you on a number of things.  Insisting that we accept progressive and statist ideology is futile......... not going to happen.  We view the world differently than you.  Likewise, calling us names, pretending we are uneducated, stupid, uninformed, evil or whatever is not going to work either. 

Not the standard garden variety, Archie.  But perhaps an Heirloom garden varietyvariety 'Republican' if I were to consider the Republican Party platform of 1860.  But wait, considering the Democrat Party platform of 1860, that sounds good too as presented Here:

But the Republican Party had the foresight not to name themselves "democrats" so I have to give the Republican Party the nod (being that America is a Republic n'all)

Girl who performed at Obama's inauguration shot dead in Chicago
By Tracy Connor, Staff Writer, NBC News

A 15-year-old girl who performed at President Obama's inauguration last week was shot dead Tuesday while hanging out with friends in bullet-scarred Chicago.

Hadiya Pendleton was standing under a canopy in Vivian Gordon Harsh Park when a gunman ran down an alley, opened fire at the group and fled in a white car, police said.

Pendleton was shot in the back but managed to run about a block before she collapsed, officer Laura Kubiak said. She died at the hospital.

A 16-year-old boy was wounded in the 2:20 p.m. incident. Police said Pendleton, who had no criminal record, was probably not the intended target.

A sophomore at selective King College Prep High School, Pendleton had traveled to Washington to perform with the marching band at inaugural events, reported.

Friends of the young majorette described her as a bubbly, well-liked student.

Hey christian- does that grill shoot out hot dogs and kielbasa?

The above is not in any way an endorsement of either of the criminal gangs of today that call themselves the Democrat and Republican parties, or of any political party past or present.  I am an individual.  I am not willing to shave off some of the humane American principles enshrined in our Constitution just to fit in a round hole made by those who are for no other than unreasonable altruistic ideas and/or wanting to be on the "winning team" come super bowl election time.  I think this nation-wide political Party "rivalry" that the American voters have been manipulated into is sophomoric, and quite dangerous to our best interests as individual human beings who have to live together.


Passed a background check, purchased it legally

Charges: Dad points AK-47 at daughter for getting two B’s in school
Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:43 PM EST Updated: Jan 25, 2013 2:59 PM EST

ST. PAUL, Minn. (KMSP) -

A St. Paul man has been charged with terroristic threats for pointing an AK-47 rifle at his daughter during an argument over the fact that she got two B's instead of straight A's in school.

According to the charges, 52-year-old Kirill Bartashevitch recently purchased the AK-47 due to fears that such weapons would be banned under President Obama's push for gun control legislation.

St. Paul police learned of the Jan. 13 incident after Bartashevitch's daughter sent a text message to a Central High School classmate, saying her father pointed an AK-47 at her. The message was seen by the classmate's mother, who reported it to a school social worker.

In an interview with the social worker, the victim said they were arguing about her grades when she swore at her father and said she "hated" him. At that point, Bartashevitch grabbed his newly-purchased gun and pointed it at his daughter.

The girl's mother said she stepped between the two, and that Bartashevitch pushed her to the ground and pointed the gun at both of them. The daughter said she wasn't scared because she didn't think the gun was loaded.

Bartashevitch admitted having a physical confrontation with his wife and daughter, and admitted to pointing the gun at both of them. He said the gun was not loaded and that he checked the chamber before pointing it at them.

St. Paul police searched the Bartashevitch home and found ammunition and receipts for two gun purchases. One receipt was for Bill's Gun Shop, dated Jan. 22, 2013. An employee of the gun shop confirmed Bartashevitch sold an AK-47 style gun -- specifically a 7.62X54R -- for $150.

The other receipt was for Frontiersman Sport, Inc., also dated Jan. 22, 2013. The gun shop confirmed Bartashevitch sold a newer AK-47 clone rifle -- a Cal-Zastava PAP 70 7.62X39 -- for $375.

Kirill Bartashevitch is charged with two counts of terroristic threats for pointing the gun at his daughter and wife. Bail was set at $20,000 with the conditions Bartashevitch have no contact with his daughter or wife.

If convicted, each charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Read more: Charges: Dad points AK-47 at daughter for getting two B’s - KMSP-TV

I would say that Katii,Jim,Rebecca and myself are the real liberals!

Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy

Busy day today

3 people shot at Phoenix office building
Suspected shooter left building after firing shots, police say
The Associated Press Posted: Jan 30, 2013 2:06 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 30, 2013 2:49 PM ET

Three people at a Phoenix, Ariz., office complex were shot Wednesday morning, and the shooter's whereabouts are unknown, local police say.

Officer James Holmes said the victims were taken to hospitals. He did not know if their injuries were life-threatening.

Holmes said police believe there was only one shooter, but they don't know his whereabouts.

"We have no motive," Holmes said. "It is right now a really fluid scene."

He said police were given conflicting information about the suspect leaving the scene. The building was evacuated and police are looking for a suspect or any additional victims.

Vannessa Brogan, who works in sales support in an insurance business in the three-storey complex, said she heard a loud bang that she thought at first was from somebody working in or near the building.

She said others at the business thought they heard multiple loud noises. She said people locked themselves in offices until authorities evacuated the central Phoenix building that houses insurance, medical and law offices.

Becky Neher, who works for a title company in the building said the two gunshots she heard sounded like two pieces of metal banging against each other.

"We were doing our regular morning routine, and I hear what I guess were two gunshots," she said.

Watching from her second-storey office, she saw people below leaving the building.

"Someone yelled, 'We have a shooter,'" she said. She saw two victims lying on the ground outside the back of the building. She said there are medical people who have offices in the complex, so they came out to help.

"This year so far, there have been more than 118 shooting incidents in Chicago, according to the city’s crime statistics."


What a horror.  Things are very bad in Chicago. 

So, is Newt Gingrich a liberal, too?

Archie..there's little difference between Newt Gingrich and Obama..They both believe in the power of Government

Jim, doesn't Chicago have some of the most strict gun regulations in the country? I believe that is correct. Chicago can also claim title to being among the most deadly gun-violent cites in the country, if I am not mistaken. Do you think ChileArchieXtian will ever be able to connect the dots and have a forehead smacking revelation? Archie, who cares what Newt or anyone else uses to define themselves to their 'public'? Its their actions that define who they are, and Newt is scum.

THIS THREAD IS TOO LONG. See part 2 thread.

Rastafari Peter Tosh

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.

New to Care2? Start Here.